Lipstick on a Pig in LD-28

By Farmer Ted

For the past several weeks the entire state has been inundated with campaign commercials mostly from the Beltway power brokers. For individuals in state legislative races, opposition research teams are publishing past voting records and mailing them to registered voters.

Sometimes you can tell who is losing and who isn’t when the hate email arrives in your inbox. Perfect example: Mary Hamway, a “Republican” candidate for Legislative District 28.

Mary Hamway

Mary Hamway

Mary is a tax and spend liberal and continues to run from her liberal voting record on Paradise Valley Town Council. If she knew she was going to be a career politician with higher aspirations than the town council she should have made sure those closed-door executive sessions didn’t amount to her voting for tax increases.

As Hillary Clinton likes to say: she has a public and a private persona. Hamway definitely seems to be taking a page from Clinton’s playbook. In Mary’s case, her mail pieces in the primary touted she was a “conservative.” Now, in this month’s public forums sponsored by district school boards and the valley interfaith community, Hamway tells the left-leaning crowd how she is proud to have raised Paradise Valley’s taxes even though those tax dollars generated were for the general fund (i.e., new marquees for the town), not for public safety as she tries to lead others to believe.

In these same public school type forums, Mary never discusses how she and her husband had the financial means to send their son to a private school and did. Unfortunately, for those voters who live in a lower socioeconomic part of the district, Hamway wants your family to suffer if you’re relegated to a D or F-rated public school. She is okay with Peter robbing Paul to pay Mary, though, so look for her to support tax increases.

Interestingly enough when an independent expenditure committee mails literature to educate voters, Hamway’s tentacles light up, including her campaign chair, Kathy Petsas. Petsas attacks anyone who is against Mary. Add Scott O’Connor, former legislative district 28 chairman, to the mix.  O’Connor seems to think anyone against Mary is coordinating with an outside political committee. It is a pattern with Scott. It is unfortunate to see it continue into another election cycle.

Hamway often calls on Scottsdale Unified School District school board member, Pam Kirby, to spread lies about her Republican opponent. The emails sent around Scottsdale, Paradise Valley and Madison School Districts are deplorable and Kirby and her busy body parent council Moms should be ashamed of themselves. You would think Kirby would attack the Democrat, but she attacks the second Republican in the race. Did the Democrats recruit Hamway to run to shore up the second seat in 28?

Not so proud, Mary, but these Alinsky-style tactics are what voters in 28 should expect if they elect Hamway. Not only does Mary want to take away your guns, but she also wants to stifle your speech.

As November 8th nears, it is certain Hamway cannot handle the pressure. Even worse, her liberal tendencies have shown true blue as she was proud enough to post a photo on October 17th on her Facebook page with Deb Stark, the Democrat who is finishing the rest of former Phoenix City Councilman Bill Gates’ council term. Sorry, Chris DeRose, she doesn’t back the only Republican in the city council race!

Congressman Trent Franks Endorses Andy Tobin, GOP Slate for Arizona Corporation Commission

Andy Tobin for Corporation Commission

(Phoenix) – Today, United States Congressman Trent Franks, a Republican who represents Arizona’s 8th Congressional District, announced his endorsement of Corporation Commissioner Andy Tobin and the three Republican candidates. Tobin is running for a full term on the Arizona Corporation Commission in order to represent Arizona’s hardworking taxpayers.

“Across every jurisdiction, the 2016 elections are vitally important for both our nation and state,” said Congressman Franks. “We must elect candidates who won’t give away our freedoms to the bureaucrats in Washington D.C., which is why I am supporting Republican candidates Andy Tobin, Bob Burns and Boyd Dunn for the Arizona Corporation Commission. I know that these conservative candidates will fight federal overreach, oversee Arizona’s energy grid, and protect Arizona against a future administration telling hard-working taxpayers what kind of energy they have to use in their homes and businesses. Please join me in supporting Tobin, Burns, and Dunn.”

“I am incredibly thankful to receive Congressman Franks’ endorsement,” said Tobin. “I have admired the Congressman throughout his career. He has always inspired me to be a better leader through his strong conservative values, limited government mindset, and desire to serve the public. Above all, he understands, as I do, that the taxpayers of Arizona need to be protected from bureaucrats and federal overreach. Once again, I thank him for his support.”

“Congressman Franks is a strong Republican force in the House of Representatives, which is why I am humbled to receive his support for the Corporation Commission,” said Dunn. “I look forward to working with two other great Republicans, Andy Tobin and Bob Burns, on the Arizona Corporation Commission. I ask for your vote this November.”

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

About Andy Tobin

Commissioner Andy Tobin is a well-known leader in Arizona state government. Prior to his appointment tothe Arizona Corporation Commission, Tobin was appointed by the Governor to serve as director of theArizona Department of Insurance in October 2015. In addition, he was appointed acting director of the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions. Prior to those appointments, Tobin served as director of the Arizona Department of Weights and Measures, helping consolidate the agency, reducing costs and improving consumer services and protections. Commissioner Tobin was a long-time member of the Arizona House of Representatives, representing rural Arizona from 2006 to 2014. He was Speaker of the House from 2011 to 2014. Prior to his Speakership, he served as the House Majority Leader and Majority Whip.

Donald Trump Must Step Aside

Donald Trump

I can no longer hold my tongue.

As a lifelong Republican who believes in a party that is far more principled on economic, international and social issues than the Democrat party, I can no longer diplomatically maneuver through the cesspool that our nominee has created.

Donald Trump must step aside.

Yes, Bill Clinton did some horrible things as President of the United States throughout the 1990’s. Many Americans gave him a second term despite all his liberal social policy positions and personal behavior. (I’m still angry at those who only cared about their wallets and gave Bill a pass when he was leading the charge in the collapse of our moral climate.)

But Bill Clinton is not running for President in 2016.

Don’t get me wrong. I will never vote to return Bill and Hillary Clinton to the White House.

It has now come to the point of full repulsion when trying to defend Donald Trump as the nominee. From all the conversations I’ve had with other lifelong conservative Republicans, I’m not alone.

We’re now 30 days from the General Election and time is running out.

The latest horrifying and disgusting revelations about Donald Trump have doomed the Republican nominee to lose this election, badly.

Trump supporters wanted to “burn the house the down” and now their fire is out of control. Some are even throwing more gasoline on the fire.

Down ballot Republicans are doomed – unless they denounce and distance themselves from the top of the ticket. Even Governor Mike Pence must be in self-preservation mode as he considers his life on Wednesday, November 9th.

I still have a lot of pent-up anger toward Republicans who gave Trump the nomination. Many of my fellow conservatives and I did everything we could to warn voters that nominating Trump would be disastrous to the GOP. We got tired of warning, begging and shouting and shoved that anger deep down inside when he became the nominee.

It’s time for a justified outburst – before it’s too late.

Donald Trump must step aside.

Prop 205 Warning! Marijuana Edibles Pose Danger to Your Children

Last week, a spokesperson for Yes on Prop 205 appeared on Prescott’s KYCA radio to propagate the myth that legalizing recreational marijuana will make our schools better and our communities safer. When confronted with the question of why their campaign signs fail to mention marijuana, he could not – or would not – answer the question. Listen here.

While it may be the pro-pot campaign’s purview to manipulate Arizonans, we believe voters should have as much information as possible when considering a policy with so many extreme and irreversible societal and public safety ramifications.

In that regard, No on Prop 205 has released new campaign signs to highlight the dangers posed by legalizing marijuana – specifically, edible forms of marijuana – to Arizona children.

Placed throughout Maricopa and Pima Counties, the signs feature pictures of edible marijuana that is virtually indistinguishable from popular store-brand, drug-free candy. Next to it, the question is posed: “Would you be able to recognize marijuana? Would your children?”

NO on Prop 205

NO on Prop 205

While there is no shortage of problems with Prop 205, one of the most troubling is that it would authorize the production and sale of highly-concentrated marijuana edibles – with NO limits on potency. It would also allow these products to be blatantly advertised and even sold near preschools and youth clubs. It’s no wonder the Boys & Girls Club of Metro Phoenix soundly opposes Prop 205.

In marijuana-friendly states, accidental pot ingestion by youth has increased by more than 600 percent. It’s no wonder; if YOU can’t tell the difference between gummy bears and ganja – how will your children?

Vote for Moses Sanchez for Maricopa County Community College District Board

I like to refer to my friend Moses Sanchez as the “Happy Warrior.” Moses is running for the Maricopa County Community College District Board this November and is someone who will bring positive conservative values and leadership to the board.

Moses Sanchez is the type of conservative we need in the Republican Party – a party we need to grow and expand if we want to affect positive change and bring new people into the party.

Moses Sanchez migrated to the United States from Panama with his parents and sister. He has served on active duty in the US Navy including a deployment to Afghanistan. He is currently serves in the reserves. He has a B.S. and MBA in Business Management and has taught economics at South Mountain Community College. He also serves on Tempe Union High School District Governing Board. He owns his own small business which helps other small businesses with social media.

Moses and his wife, Maria Manriquez, MD, have three children and three grandchildren. He is a man of faith and family and demonstrates a strong ethic in everything he does. And if you’ve seen his Snapchat videos, you know the man can seriously cook! (Read Moses’ full bio here.)

Moses is running in MCCCD (district) 1 which covers all of Ahwatukee, Chandler, Tempe, Gilbert, Queen Creek and parts of Scottsdale, Mesa, and Phoenix. He is competing against two other candidates in the race.

Early ballots are scheduled to go out later this week. When you get your ballot, immediately go to the bottom of the ballot and mark your vote for Moses Sanchez.

Moses will bring strong, optimistic and conservative governance to the MCCCD and it’s why I ask you to vote for Moses Sanchez this election.

Visit Moses Sanchez’ website at And, follow Moses Sanchez on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram.

Martha McSally Releases Two New Ads in CD-2

As the General Election approaches, Republican Congresswoman Martha McSally has released two new ads in the race for Arizona’s Second Congressional District.

In her ad, “John Ladd,” longtime southern Arizona rancher, John Ladd, gives his personal testimony why voters should support Col Martha McSally. “[she’s] trying to get the border secured. She brought the first and biggest delegation from Homeland Security down here last year. Nobody ever did that before… She is leading the charge in Washington right now.”

Here’s the video for the ad:

In her second ad, “Helen,” World War II veteran Helen Anderson tells her story of service in the Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service (WAVEs), where she serviced combat planes. Ms. Anderson says she joined the Navy for patriotism. Anderson notes that she is “extremely proud that Martha McSally can represent women veterans and veterans as a whole. It’s not just lip service, it’s actual service. She puts her whole heart and soul into it and that’s the reason I support Martha McSally.”

You can view “Helen” here:

Martha McSally will face off against liberal Democrat Dr. Matt Heinz in the General Election.

When A Lie Travels: Comparing Alcohol To Marijuana

By Seth Leibsohn

Seth LeibsohnThis November, several states will vote on whether to legalize marijuana for recreational use, and the proponents of legalization have seized on a seemingly clever argument: marijuana is safer than alcohol.  The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, an effort of the Marijuana Policy Project (or MPP), has taken this argument across the country.  Their latest strategy is labeled Marijuana vs. Alcohol.  It is a very misleading, even dangerous, message, based on bad social science and sophistic public deception.

Citing out-of-date studies that go back ten years and more, even using that well-known scientific journal, Wikipedia, the MPP never references current research on the harms of today’s high potency and edible marijuana, studies that come out monthly if not more frequently.  Indeed, their Marijuana vs. Alcohol page concludes with a 1988 statement about the negligible harms of marijuana—but that is a marijuana that simply does not exist anymore, neither in mode nor potency.  Today’s marijuana is at least five times more potent, and sold in much different form.  And the science of marijuana and its effects on the brain have come some distance since 1988 as well.

So out-of-date is the science and knowledge of marijuana from thirty years ago, it would be malpractice in any other field to suggest that kind of information about a drug having any contemporary relevance at all.  One almost wonders if the MPP thinks public health professors still instruct their students on how to use microfiche to perform their research as they prepare to write their papers on 5K memory typewriters.

It is simply misleading in a public health campaign to cite dated research while at the same time ignore a larger body of current evidence that points in the opposite direction of a desired outcome.  At great potential peril to our public health, political science (in the hands of the marijuana industry) is far outrunning medical science.  But the danger is clear: with the further promotion, marketing, and use of an increasingly known dangerous substance, public health and safety will pay the price.

Consider three basic problems with the industry’s latest campaign:

I.  Comparisons of relative dangers of various drugs are simply impossible and can often lead to paradoxical conclusions.  It is impossible to compare a glass of chardonnay and its effects on various adults of various weights and tolerance levels with the inhalation or consumption of a high-potency marijuana joint or edible.  Is the joint from the 5 percent THC level or the 25 percent level?  How about a 30 mg—or stronger—gummy bear?  A glass of wine with dinner processes through the body in about an hour and has little remaining effect.  A marijuana brownie or candy can take up to 90 minutes to even begin to take effect.

Consider a consumer of a glass of wine who ate a full meal and waited an hour or more before driving and a consumer of a marijuana edible taking the wheel of a plane, train, automobile, or anything else.  The wine drinker would likely be sober, the marijuana consumer would just be getting high, and, given the dose, possibly very high at that.

True, marijuana consumption rarely causes death, but its use is not benign.  Last year, an ASU professor took a standard dose of edible marijuana, just two marijuana coffee beans. The effect?  “[E]pisodes of convulsive twitching and jerking and passing out” before the paramedics were called.  Such episodes are rare for alcohol, but they are increasingly happening with marijuana.

Beyond acute effects, the chronic impact of marijuana is also damaging.  Approximately twice the percentage of regular marijuana users will experience Marijuana Use Disorder than will alcohol users experience Alcohol Use Disorder—both disorders categorized by the Diagnostic Statistics Manual (DSM).[1]   Marijuana is also the number one substance of abuse for teens admitted to treatment, far higher than the percentage who present with alcohol problems.  In fact, the most recent data out of Colorado shows 20 percent of teens admitted for treatment have marijuana listed as their primary substance of abuse compared to less than one percent for alcohol.

Still, the Campaign persists in its deceptions—as if they have not even read their own literature.  One online marketing tool it recently deployed was the “Consume Responsibly” campaign.  Delve into that site and you will find this warning: “[Smoked marijuana] varies from person to person, you should wait at least three to four hours before driving a vehicle.”  And: “Edible marijuana products and some other infused products remain in your system several hours longer, so you should not operate a vehicle for the rest of the day after consuming them.”  Who has ever been told that they should not operate a vehicle for four hours, much less for the rest of the day, if they had a glass of wine or beer?  Safer than alcohol?  This is not even true according to the MPP’s own advice.

Beyond unscientific dose and effect comparisons, there is a growing list of problems where marijuana use does, indeed, appear to be more harmful than alcohol.  According to Carnegie Mellon’s Jonathan Caulkins: “Marijuana is significantly more likely to interfere with life functioning” than alcohol and “it is moderately more likely to create challenges of self-control and to be associated with social and mental health problems.”

Additionally, a recent study out of UC Davis revealed that marijuana dependence was more strongly linked to financial difficulties than alcohol dependence and had the same impacts on downward mobility, antisocial behavior in the workplace, and relationship conflict as alcohol.

II.  The marijuana industry pushes and promotes the use of a smoked or vaped substance, but never compares marijuana to tobacco.  Indeed, the two substances have much more in common than marijuana and alcohol, especially with regard to the products themselves and the method of consumption (though we are also seeing increasing sales of child-attractive marijuana candies).  But why is the comparison never made?  The answer lies in the clear impossibility.

Consider: Almost every claim about marijuana’s harms in relation to alcohol has to do with the deaths associated with alcohol.  But, hundreds of thousands more people die from tobacco than alcohol.  Based on their measures of mortality, which is safer: alcohol or tobacco?  Can one safely drink and drive?  No.  Can one smoke as many cigarettes as one wants while driving?  Of course. So, what’s the more dangerous substance?  Mortality does not answer that question.

Alcohol consumption can create acute problems, while tobacco consumption can create chronic problems.  And those chronic problems particularly affect organs like the lungs, throat, and heart.  But what of the chronic impact on the brain?  That’s the marijuana risk, and, seemingly, society is being told that brains are less important than lungs.  Nobody can seriously believe that, which is why these comparisons simply fail scrutiny.

This illustrates but one of the problems in comparing dangerous substances. As Professor Caulkins recently wrote:

“The real trouble is not that marijuana is more or less dangerous than alcohol; the problem is that they are altogether different…. The country is not considering whether to switch the legal statuses of alcohol and marijuana. Unfortunately, our society does not get to choose either to have alcohol’s dangers or to have marijuana’s dangers. Rather, it gets to have alcohol’s dangers…and also marijuana’s dangers.

Further, marijuana problems are associated with alcohol problems.  New research out of Columbia University reveals that marijuana users are five times more likely to have an alcohol abuse disorder. Society doesn’t just switch alcohol for marijuana—too often, one ends up with use of both, compounding both problems.

The larger point for voters to understand:  The marijuana legalization movement is not trying to ban or end alcohol sales or consumption; rather, it wants to add marijuana to the dangerous substances already available, including alcohol.  This is not about marijuana or alcohol, after all.  It’s about marijuana and alcohol.

We can see this effect in states like Colorado, with headlines such as “Alcohol sales get higher after weed legalization.”  And, according to the most recent federal data[2], alcohol use by teens, as well as adults, has increased in Colorado since 2012 (the year of legalization). If alcohol is the problem for the MPP, in their model state–Colorado–alcohol consumption has increased with marijuana legalization.  Legalizing marijuana will, in the end, only make alcohol problems worse.

III.  The legalization movement regularly cites to one study in the Journal of Scientific Reports to “prove” that marijuana is safer than alcohol.  But this study leads to odd conclusions in what the authors, themselves, call a “novel risk assessment methodology.”  For instance, the researchers find that every drug, from cocaine to meth to MDMA to LSD, is found to be safer than alcohol. (See this graph).  By the MPP standard, we should thereby make these substances legal as well.  But, seeing such data in its full light, we all know this would be nonsensical.

Further, the authors specifically write that they only looked at acute effects and did not analyze “chronic toxicity,” and cannot judge marijuana and “long term effects.”  Indeed, they specifically write in their study the toxicity of marijuana “may therefore be underestimated” given the limitations of their examination.  Yet, legalizers ignore these statements.  Always.  It simply does not fit their narrative.

What long-term effects are we talking about?  To cite the New England Journal of Medicine: “addiction, altered brain development, poor educational outcomes, cognitive impairment,” and “increased risk of chronic psychosis disorders.”  Now think about what it will mean to make a drug with those adverse effects more available, and for recreational use.

Finally, the very authors of the much-cited Journal of Scientific Reports study specifically warn their research should be “treated carefully particularly in regard to dissemination to lay people….especially considering the differences of risks between individuals and the whole population.”  But this is precisely what commercialization is about—not individual adult use but making a dangerous drug more available to “the whole population.”

Given what we know in states like Colorado, we clearly see that legalization creates more availability which translates into more use, affecting whole populations—Colorado college-age use, for example, is now 62 percent higher than the national average. [See FN2, below].

And the science is coming in, regularly.  Indeed, the same journal the MPP points to in its two-year old “novel” study, just this year published another study and found:

“[N]eurocognitive function of daily or near daily cannabis users can be substantially impaired from repeated cannabis use, during and beyond the initial phase of intoxication. As a consequence, frequent cannabis use and intoxication can be expected to interfere with neurocognitive performance in many daily environments such as school, work or traffic.

That is why these comparisons of safety and harm are—in the end—absurd and dangerous.  In asking what is safer, the true answer is “neither.”  And for a variety of reasons.  But where one option is impossible to eliminate (as in alcohol), society should not add to the threat that exists:  One doesn’t say because a playground is near train tracks you should also put a highway there.  You fence off the playground.

That, however, is not the choice the MPP has given us.  They are not sponsoring legislation to reduce the harms of alcohol, they are, instead, saying that with all the harms of alcohol, we should now add marijuana.  But looking at all the problems society now has with substance abuse, the task of the serious is to reduce the problems with what already exists, not advance additional dangers.

If the MPP and its Campaigns to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol are serious about working on substance abuse problems, we invite them to join those of us who have labored in these fields for years.  One thing we do know: adding to the problems with faulty arguments, sloppy reasoning, and questionable science, will not reduce the problems they point to.  It will increase them.  And that, beyond faulty argument and sloppy reasoning, is public policy malfeasance.

[1] See compared to

[2] 2011/2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health compared to 2013/2014.

Christine Jones’ Statement on CD-5 Election Results

Christine Jones for Congress

(Gilbert, AZ)Friday afternoon, conservative business leader Christine Jones released the following statement regarding the final CD-5 Republican Primary Election results:

“I am very thankful for the opportunity to have shared my conservative outsider message with the citizens of CD-5. Although we came up short on results, I believe we were successful in making this election about the issues rather than political hand-offs. Voters want to know their representatives are not taking them for granted.

“I want to thank my supporters, volunteers and staff for devoting their time, talent and treasure to this campaign. They carried the weight of this endeavor and to them, I am indebted.

“I congratulate my opponent, Senator Andy Biggs, and wish him the best in the General Election.

“The General Election is rapidly approaching and there is much work to be done to elect Republicans in local, state and national elections. We must not take anything for granted, especially the trust of the voters. This election will be critical to restoring the economy, jobs and national security to America. We must win.

“As for me and my family, I will continue to contribute to the community making the East Valley a great place to work, play and raise a family.”

VIDEO: Rachel Alexander on the Depths of Legal Corruption and State Bar Abuses in Arizona

rach-videoWatch Ernie White Media interview IC Arizona editor Rachel Alexander, former prosecutor Lisa Aubuchon, and federal attorney Jeffrey Moffatt on how they were targeted as conservative attorneys by the State Bar of Arizona and others connected to the Bar, including the Bar’s crooked disciplinary judge William O’Neil. This kind of corruption isn’t just happening at the Department of Justice,  but on the local level. Alexander and Aubuchon were both briefly attorneys for Sheriff Arpaio, which is why they were targeted. They join a growing number of attorneys who have had their reputations, career, health and lives destroyed by these crooked, vicious partisans, and so they and Moffatt will not stop speaking out until the corruption is rooted out. Alexander and Aubuchon are now in their seventh year of the never-ending targeting, which Alexander has written about here.


Pinal County Massacre, Part II

In a stunning election night surprise, incumbent Pinal County Attorney Lando Voyles was soundly defeated by political newcomer Kent Volkmer (results here).

There is no exit polling but the chatter is that Lando lost because he noticeably increased spending soon after taking office. His actions seemed to cost the county money from day one, including summarily firing a merit protected employee in what was called The Pinal County Massacre and choosing a chief deputy mired in controversy.

Voyles rarely showed up to candidate forums and Volkmer took full advantage of that fact to list the mistakes and shortcomings of Voyles.  Volkmer did not hold back and his charges against Voyles went unanswered by the absent Voyles.

Mark LambAn even greater election night beat-down took place in the race to replace outgoing Sheriff Paul Babeu. His hand-picked successor, Chief Deputy Sheriff Steve Henry, was resoundingly defeated by another political newcomer Mark Lamb.

Voyles and Henry continued using the Law and Order moniker that Babeu and Voyles rolled out in 2012 but the tag line was of little help this year. Henry was not an incumbent in the race but as the current chief deputy, he came pretty close.

Not only was the defeat of an incumbent and an anointed successor a surprise but the margin of victory for the two challengers was a surprise. Few people know how the two new elected officials will run their offices but clearly the voters chose a change in direction for law enforcement in Pinal County.