Christine Jones Hits Hillary Clinton Hard in Recent Commentary

Christine Jones

Christine Jones

Yesterday, I excoriated Hillary Clinton over her unethical use of the Clinton Foundation as a donation laundering operation and “pay to play” tool to accommodate foreign dictators. Today, I’ll remind voters of the Clinton speech racket.

Since 2001, Hillary and her husband have engaged in making speeches before powerful special interest groups that have raked in millions of dollars for their private foundation and their own personal wealth. In fact, in a two-year period, she collected over $21 million from banks and corporations. This smacks of serious conflicts of interest and quid pro quo problems, especially when corporations and foreign interests had “business” before the US State Department.

Watchdog groups, journalists and even Bernie Sanders have demanded she release the transcripts of her speeches. What did she tell big banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and when did she say it? What was her honorarium and how much did she personally pocket? These are questions she refuses to answer. Remember, this is a woman who admitted they left the White House ‘dead broke.’

Hillary Clinton has been anything but honest and ethical in her personal and professional life. In just over 100 days, Hillary hopes to capture the most powerful position in the free world to complete her goal of wanton ambition. Join me in rejecting Hillary and stopping the corruption of career politicians like Hillary Clinton.

Corrupt Hillary Clinton

Has Andy Biggs Become A Globalist?

By East Valley Evan

Andy Biggs supported Ron Paul for President in 2008. His wife, Cindy, even donated to Paul’s campaign in 2008. He identified himself as an anti-establishment conservative but something changed. Andy Biggs was put into leadership and political power changed him. He started to get comfortable with lobbyists and the political establishment. He became cozy with interest groups like the Payday Loan industry and he opposed reforms to the lobbying process, such as bans on gifts to legislator’s.

To see how far Biggs has come, look at the compromises he’s already making in his run for congress.

Biggs supports the Export-Import Bank.

This bank is the pet project of the political elites and those with a globalist agenda. Biggs will tout his opposition to bringing money back to citizens in Arizona from the Feds, but has no problem spending tax dollars on a federal government bank to fund defense contractors, and businesses with large lobbying interests.

I think every conservative in CD-5 should know who Andy Biggs really is.

Here is what Andy Biggs said during the East Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance debate when asked by Arizona Capitol Times reporter, Jim Small, if he supports renewal of the ExIM Bank:

 

The Thin Blue Line Between Gary Kiehne and Paul Babeu

Political analysts see Arizona’s CD-1 primary race tightening with rancher Gary Kiehne quickly closing in on Paul Babeu.

Kiehne has self-funded his current and former campaigns with over $750,000 of his own money. With so much of his personal wealth at stake, Kiehne began attacking Babeu last week.

Early Ballots will hit mailboxes on August 3 with the bulk of the votes taking place before Primary Election Day.

Pundits expect Babeu to fire back with both barrels. Why? Kiehne is highly vulnerable – especially now – because of his 2014 gaffe comparing Arizona law enforcement to Nazi SS agents. Not a winsome remark to have made considering law enforcement personnel are literally being attacked across the country.

If Babeu is to maintain his lead in the race, watch for him to remind voters that Keihne crossed the thin blue line when he showed callous disrespect toward the law enforcement community in 2014.

Andy Biggs Crony Capitalist Supports Export-Import Bank

By East Valley Evan

If you look up the definition of corporate cronyism in the dictionary, the Export-Import Bank will be its prime case study. Although the Ex-Im Bank was created to finance and bolster America’s exports, the taxpayer funded bank has not only not improved exports but has been by expert accounts a financial disaster.

In fact, the only group that has benefited is well connected global elites, many of which are foreign corporations with deep Washington, D.C. connections.

During the East Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance debate, former Arizona Senator President Andy Biggs enthusiastically supported the re authorization and creation of the Ex-Im bank. Despite the Bank’s terrible financial record, Andy Biggs had no problem supporting an inefficient subsidized institution that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

Ex-Im Bank is an example of the corruption in Washington. Although clearly a fraud, well connected financiers and subsidized loan recipients have heaped money and influence on Congress to continue the authorization of the Bank’s corporate welfare gravy-train.

Academics and experts have criticized the bank for becoming nothing more than a welfare bank for globally connected elites. As experts have said:

“An increasing body of evidence shows that the Ex-Im Bank provides subsidized financing to big businesses at the expense of smaller businesses and taxpayers while doing little to promote exports, create jobs, or improve competitiveness of US firms. Removing this source of government-granted privilege can only help US exporters.”

This great video explains why it is such a huge welfare failure.

As a reminder, in 1986 the Ex-Im Bank was embroiled in a controversy for funneling money to communist Angola. Almost a year later, the Ex-Im Bank losses were so staggering that it had to receive an Obama-esque bailout out by Congress.

As a reminder, the Ex-Im Bank does not improve our American exports.

C3-Total-Jobs-Export-Value-large

 

Although there are not too many conservative free-market litmus tests left in the world, the Export-Import Bank is a shining example of cronyism at its worst.

If we cannot trust Andy Biggs to oppose something so obviously corrupt as the Ex-Im Bank, how can we trust him to rein in spending in Washington?

Guest Opinion: Recreational marijuana? The price is too high

Seth Leibsohn

Seth Leibsohn

Advocates say we need to regulate pot like alcohol in Arizona, but their measure doesn’t even do that.

If insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results, no word better describes the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in Arizona.

Colorado and Washington, the first states to do this, have seen increases in teen use of marijuana, traffic fatalities and emergency room visits (including of toddlers) — all tied to marijuana. In Denver, home of most of the pot shops, more than one in three 11th- and 12th-graders are now regular marijuana users, an increase of 20.5 percent from two years ago, according to the latest Colorado youth survey.

Big protections for pot industry

Sheila Polk

Sheila Polk

Arizona should expect similar results, especially since this 20-page initiative is chock full of protectionism for the marijuana industry. Written by out-of-state lobbyists and Arizona marijuana-business owners, it creates two new government agencies, including a seven-member commission with three members mandated to come from the marijuana industry so they can “regulate” themselves.

This initiative gives current medical-marijuana dispensaries a virtual monopoly on retail stores and cultivation. This is not simple legalization, but increased government protecting special interests to the detriment of everyone else.

The initiative would legalize hashish as well, opening the door to high-potency marijuana candies. The marijuana of the 1970s had potency levels of less than 1 percent. Colorado’s marijuana edibles have potency levels of 60 percent.

Stiffer penalties for alcohol than pot

The proponents’ claim that this initiative regulates marijuana like alcohol is disingenuous. The alcohol industry doesn’t dream of being treated as lightly as this initiative would treat marijuana. At every opportunity to advance public safety, the initiative protects marijuana use instead:

  • Using marijuana under the proposed initiative becomes a legal right. Someone who shows up for work drunk can be disciplined or fired based on an alcohol test. But under this initiative, showing up for work impaired by marijuana would be shielded from discipline until after the commission of an act of negligence or malpractice.
  • Any driver with a blood alcohol content over 0.08 percent is legally drunk. The Arizona law would prohibit a THC limit from ever being set.
  • Penalties for a minor using a fake ID to buy marijuana would be far lower than for his friend who uses a fake ID to buy alcohol. Same for someone selling marijuana to a minor using a fake ID.

The experiment in Washington and Colorado shows how disastrous this proposal is.

  • Fatal accidents involving drivers who recently used marijuana more than doubled in Washington in the year after legalization.
  • The rate of people going to Colorado emergency rooms with marijuana-related symptoms rose 44 percent from 2012 to 2014.
  • Employers there report having to hire out of state for a sober workforce.

No amount of cash can justify this

Just as in Arizona, marijuana’s apologists in Colorado and Washington said they wanted to keep marijuana away from children. It didn’t work out that way there and it won’t be different here.

And this is why that matters: Marijuana is “addicting, has adverse effects upon the adolescent brain, is a risk for both cardio-respiratory disease and testicular cancer, and is associated with both psychiatric illness and negative social outcomes,” according to the American College of Pediatricians.

At what cost? According to the Arizona legislative budget staff, expected revenue from legalizing marijuana could put $30 million into our education system, barely 0.33 percent of what Arizona now spends.

Now balance that minimal amount against the costs of treatment, tragic loss of life from traffic fatalities, workplace accidents, or the lost potential of young brains harmed by marijuana. No amount of money can justify that.

This law would contribute nothing positive to Arizona. Instead it exacts a tremendous cost, all to benefit a handful of marijuana-industry insiders. Arizonans do not need this and will not be able to afford it. The price is too high.

Seth Leibsohn chairs Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy. Sheila Polk is the Yavapai County Attorney and vice chair of ARDP. Email them at info@ardp.org.

How State Bars Are Taking Down Conservative Attorneys

Arizona bar disciplinary judge William O’Neil

Reposted from Townhall
By Rachel Alexander

State bars across the country have become havens for the left in recent years, increasingly used to target conservative attorneys. With deep pockets — due to the exorbitant amount of dues they charge attorneys in order to practice law — it is impossible to fight back once targeted. More than half of state bars are mandatory, which means they are unavoidable if you want to practice law. This is very disturbing, considering many of these states have right-to-work laws. Why are attorneys required to join a union?

Arizona has one of the most corrupt state bars in the country. Many attorneys have lost their jobs, reputations and livelihoods, in large part due to the Arizona bar’s disciplinary Judge William O’Neil. Arizona is a conservative state, but the left controls the legal system here. They have put in their guy O’Neil, a Democrat, who apparently does whatever they say. He particularly seems to go after conservative attorneys. And even if he just suspends a conservative attorney for a brief period of time, he usually finds some technical reason to never let them back into the practice of law.

It has started to hurt business in Arizona, since fewer people are risking becoming attorneys in the state, as word about his draconian rulings has spread. One frivolous bar complaint?  Your entire career could be destroyed. Several sites have popped up exposing the Arizona bar recently, including Working for a Better Bar and Judges Gone Wild. Legislation has been introduced over the last two years to reduce the bar’s power and make it non-mandatory.

Hardly anyone dares to stand up to O’Neil — because he can ruin any attorney or judge, as the disciplinary judge over all licensed attorneys in the state.

Let’s compare how Judge O’Neil treats conservative attorneys vs. his cronies, such as fellow judges, when it comes to bar complaints. Jeffrey Moffatt, who doesn’t even practice law in Arizona but is a member of the Arizona bar, ran for Congress in California as a Republican this past year. Some woman in New Mexico complained to the New Mexico bar and the California bar that he had asked her for a nude photo. She was not a client; at most a prospective client. The New Mexico bar properly dismissed the complaint since it had nothing to do with the practice of law and she wasn’t a client.

Moffatt had emailed her on October 28, 2013. She filed a complaint with the California State Bar a few days later. Since Moffatt was not licensed with that bar, it was referred to the Arizona bar, but rather untimely — one and a half years later. The California bar has its own history of corruption, known for ignoring complaints. Arizona Bar Counsel filed a complaint against Moffatt over two years later, on November 9, 2015.

Soliciting nude photos — akin to prostitution — is a criminal misdemeanor. In Arizona, the statute of limitations for filing a criminal complaint for prostitution is one year, so the complaint was filed against Moffatt after the period had tolled.

What is even more disturbing about this, is that Moffatt never got a criminal trial; he never had jurors decide his case, as is required by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Instead, the state bar ignored his right to due process, and ruled on what should have been a minor criminal issue.  

The Arizona bar implicated him under ethical rule 8.4(b), which had been quietly modified recently to make it a criminal violation.

8.4(b) now says in pertinent part that a lawyer may not “commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.”

This ethical rule is blatantly unconstitutional, and I hope Moffatt challenges it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. What jury determined that Moffatt had committed a crime? This ethical rule and its precedent with Moffatt should frighten any attorney —  I hope organizations like the ACLU are looking at this.

But Judge O’Neil disbarred Moffatt. That’s right, he didn’t just censure him, give him probation or a suspension. He threw the book at him as if he was some criminal. He ignored that the statute of limitations had passed to prosecute him.

There are plenty of Arizona attorneys who behaved much worse sexually than Moffatt, but because they were connected or “did what they were told” and hired the “right” counsel to represent them in disciplinary proceedings, they didn’t get much more than a wrist slap from Judge O’Neil. One victim of O’Neil’s on another matter told me that insiders told him to hire some overpriced law firm O’Neil favors for $20k and that would get him off the hook. He didn’t, and so now his law license is indefinitely suspended, with $100k hanging over his head.

One of these key attorneys who has gotten many attorneys off the hook, who I’m told is one of the most corrupt attorneys in Arizona, Scott Rhodes, boasts on his website, “In 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court appointed Mr. Rhodes to serve on its Attorney Regulation Advisory Committee. This Committee makes recommendations regarding attorney examination, admissions, reinstatement, disability and the lawyer discipline process.” Rhodes has a long history of connections to the state bar and the biggest Democratic-controlled law firms in the state.

TED ABRAMS

In contrast to Moffatt, look how O’Neil treated his fellow judge Ted Abrams. O’Neil merely suspended him for two years and barred him from being a judge. Here is Abrams’ extensive history of sexual harassment, as reported by The Arizona Republic:

During a 14-month period, the judge sent the unidentified public defender at least 28 voicemails and 85 text messages, many of which were sexually suggestive (at least one was, he admitted, “obscene,” and described a sex act he wanted to perform on her), repeatedly pressured her for sex, made slurping noises and at one point fondled her buttock. In response, the public defender said she wasn’t interested, repeatedly told him that it would be inappropriate for them to have a relationship because he was a judge, she worked in his courtroom and he was married. She called him him “crazy and disgusting.”

Abrams, 47, also had a sexual relationship with another attorney, a private defense lawyer who appeared in his court, and he sent sexually explicit e-mails to a third attorney, an assistant city prosecutor who appeared in his court.

The state bar brief said the judge “victimized a young lawyer for his own personal gratification and when she did not enjoy, welcome or otherwise relent to his constant requests for sexual contact, he berated and humiliated her from the bench during a jury trial.” The victim also said Abrams told her that it would not be good for her career if she rejected his advances. After the short suspension, it appears that he is about to be reinstated to the Arizona bar.

FRED ACKEL

Fred Ackel, another judge, was punished by the Arizona Supreme Court for his sexual misbehavior with a mere censure. Not even suspension, probation, etc.

A litigant who appeared in front of Ackel to stop a man from harassing her, was — ironically — so disturbed by the judge’s constant sexual remarks and attempt to have a romantic relationship with her, that she started tape recording him. His comments about sex were extraordinarily vulgar. Perhaps most disturbing, he told her in regards to the man harassing her, “If I have to raise some more hell, I’ll have him arrested.”

The court said in its opinion, “We agree with the Commission that Ackel’s conduct toward Randall constituted willful misconduct.” The court also noted that he’d had six prior complaints — and one they considered an aggravating factor, where he had called a female attorney during a pretrial conference “darling,” and commented on her legs. In fact, the court found a second aggravating factor, “Ackel’s regular use of endearing terms toward and physical contact with women.”

In contrast, Judge O’Neil admitted in his opinion that a mitigating factor in Moffatt’s case was the “absence of a prior disciplinary record.”

CHARNA JOHNSON

Charna Johnson is an attorney who was found to have had sex with a client, as well as channeling the dead to communicate to clients. The bar also reported, “Johnson represented her client in a divorce proceeding and drafted a will, leaving all the assets for herself.” Despite the fact that “Five aggravating factors were found: prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, submission of false evidence, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of conduct and substantial experience in the practice of law,” Johnson was merely suspended for one year.

MATTHEW SCHULTZ

Attorney Matthew Schultz admitted he had a sexual relationship with a client, and was just suspended for one year.

ROBERT STANDAGE

Government attorney Robert Standage, unlike Moffatt, actually did send sexual images and videos to an existing client. He was already on probation for a previous incident, but Judge O’Neil merely suspended him for two years. His attorney — no surprise — was Scott Rhodes.

Arizona Bar ethical rule (ER) 1.8(j) was cited in most of these cases. It says, “A lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced.”

Moffatt never even had an attorney-client relationship with the woman who complained about him. He merely asked her for a nude photo. Unlike most of these other attorneys, he did not pursue a sexual relationship after hiring a client or when he was involved with them in the legal system.

Judge O’Neil allowed an attorney friend of his who had killed a woman while drinking and driving to continue practicing law in prison. This same attorney had helped O’Neil out with an unethical short sale of his mother-in-law’s property, where she got to continue living in the house but got all the debt paid off.

Judge O’Neil suspended my license for six months and won’t let me get it back until I’ve paid $101,500 — the cost of the trial against not just me but my two superiors. Extortion, anyone? The Bar brought in pricey lawyers from out of state, including one who may be impersonating a lawyer.

This is nothing more than disparate treatment. Moffatt is being targeted because he was a Republican running for office, as well as an out-of-state solo practitioner without the deep pockets of a big-firm attorney, so the Arizona bar thinks he’s an easy target. The abuse needs to stop, state bars need to become voluntary associations only. Whatever happened to equal treatment under the law and justice for all?

Arizona Catholic Conference: Bishops’ Statement Opposing the Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

Arizona Catholic Conference
ARIZONA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE BISHOPS’ STATEMENT OPPOSING THE LEGALIZATION OF RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA

The Bishops of the Arizona Catholic Conference oppose the campaign to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in Arizona because it is harmful to both children and families in Arizona.

Legalizing the recreational use of marijuana sends a message to children and young people that drug use is socially and morally acceptable. As people of faith, we must speak out against this effort and the damaging effects its passage would have on the children and families of Arizona.

Studies have shown that adolescents who use marijuana have significant differences in brain structure and cognitive functioning compared to those who do not use marijuana and experience up to an eight-point drop in IQ. Furthermore, based on what happened in just two years after Colorado legalized marijuana, it is estimated that if Arizona passes this measure, tens of thousands of additional 8th graders here will smoke marijuana for the first time.

Marijuana-related traffic accidents and other problems are also likely to dramatically increase if recreational marijuana use is legalized. In Colorado for example, marijuana-related traffic deaths dramatically increased after recreational marijuana was legalized. Additionally, Colorado witnessed similar dramatic increases in hospitalizations and emergency room visits related to marijuana usage after recreational use was legalized.

In states that have legalized marijuana, there has also been an increase in the use of harder drugs like cocaine and heroin since marijuana was legalized, which only further increased societal costs.

For the reasons mentioned above, and others, it is anticipated that legalizing the recreational use of marijuana in Arizona will lead to more abuse by teens, more emergency room visits, more traffic deaths, and more societal costs. Accordingly, due to the detrimental effect it would have on children, families, and all of society, we strongly oppose this dangerous proposal.

Most Rev. Eduardo A. Nevares
Auxiliary Bishop of Phoenix

Most Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted
Bishop of Phoenix

Most Rev. Gerald F. Kicanas
Bishop of Tucson

Most Rev. James S. Wall
Bishop of Gallup

Frank Schmuck: Fly Your Flag And Show Your Patriotism In The Face of Terrorism

Frank SchmuckISIS now admits responsibility for the massacre in Orlando, Florida. A Radical Islamic Terrorist did this.  He could have used a sword.  He chose to use a gun.  A terrorist used fertilizer in Oklahoma City. Radical Islamic Terrorists used box cutters and airplanes in New York City, Pennsylvania and the Pentagon.  Banning implements is not the answer.

Americans need to be able to defend themselves, not have radicalized terrorists or the mentally unstable hold them hostage.  When governments make gun free zones the criminal does NOT suffer, the law-abiding citizen suffers.

ISIS does not and will not conform to a well-regulated militia. Hard working Americans can and will.

John Stuart Mill spoke this centuries ago. “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is worse. . . . A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

War is in America – New York City, San Bernardino, and now Orlando. Who’s next? Let’s stand up and defend this great nation and ALL classes of people who live here against radicalism. Don’t let “political correctness” cause the loss of life again.  Speak up. This act of terror awoke an American sleeping giant spirit. Let us not forget freedom isn’t free. When you exercise your right to vote think about those who have experience with defending your freedoms. Without safety, rules don’t matter. This enemy doesn’t play by the same rules we do. Be vigilant. Be strong. Protect one another.

Today is Flag Day. Hang your flag proudly to show your patriotism.

Frank Schmuck, Captain
Persian Gulf War Veteran
Conservative Republican Candidate
AZ State Senate LD18

Arizona Free Enterprise Club: Minimum Wage Initiative a Ploy to Unionize Workers

Free Enterprise Club

Reposted from The Arizona Free Enterprise Club.

Currently there is a massive effort underway to get several “California-style” initiatives on the ballot in November. The Club encourages anyone approached on the street by one of these petition carriers to “decline to sign.” One of the initiatives likely to get the signatures necessary to qualify jacks up the minimum wage and mandates minimum state-wide paid sick time.

Specifically, the measure increases Arizona’s minimum wage from the current $8.05, to $10 starting January 1st, 2017 – and tops out at a whopping $12 an hour in 2020, then defaulting back to increases based upon the cost of living index. Additionally, if passed, it would mandate businesses with more than 15 employees provide 40 hours of paid sick time and 24 hours of annual paid sick time for businesses with less than 15 employees.

This voter protected act would have a devastating effect on Arizona’s economy. Minimum wage schemes set an arbitrary floor on every industry, every business, and every job – and divorces wages from the actual economic value a position creates. As a result, minimum wages do not heed any more buying power for the people they purport to help, but instead increase costs and therefore create an eventual pressure to increase prices. Mandatory paid sick leave is another invention of the left which seeks to create policies in a vacuum outside any economic realities.

However the real intent of these “worker welfare” movements is more and more obvious. The campaign “Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families” is being pushed by the union-backed organization LUCHA (Living United for Change in Arizona) who since 2013 has advocated the “Fight for $15” for fast food workers and other out-of-state union groups. The battles are for minimum wage and paid sick leave; the war is unionization of the total workforce. This is evidenced by the fact that this very initiative exempts workers under a collective bargaining agreement. In other words, we have hit a new level of hypocrisy. If this was about creating the workers’ paradise, and not about incentivizing unionization, there would be no exceptions.

As if this all wasn’t damaging enough, the initiative has another kicker, which allows cities and towns to pass more generous wage and benefit mandates. With cities such as Tempe, Flagstaff, Phoenix, and Tucson – Arizona can expect to have a patchwork of employment laws – making doing business across city borders an arduous endeavor.

Arizonans should be wary this election season. Union groups and leftist interests are out in full force – trying to make the Grand Canyon State look more like an increasingly bankrupt California. If voters are wise, they will reject destructive ballot initiatives such as this one.

Follow Arizona Free Enterprise Club on Facebook and Twitter.

Olson, Biggs, Stapley – Career Politicians Seeking Arizona’s CD-5

There’s no doubt for Republicans that 2016 will be a year that favors outsiders running for office. Career politicians are out, conservative non-politicians are in.

That certainly is the situation in several Arizona political races and especially in the East Valley.

With the exception of one candidate, Arizona’s 5th Congressional District is crowded with career politicians – though you would never know it based on the rhetoric of the candidates.  In reality, this club of career politicians has a combined total of 38 years in politics!

Let’s look at the messaging of each of these candidates.

Posted all over Justin Olson’s campaign website is the theme that Washington politicians are the problem and he is not one of them. He even claims not to be a career politician and qualifies the statement by stating he hasn’t spent 10, 12 or 14 years in office (a comparison to two of his Primary opponents). Here’s what he doesn’t tell you. Justin Olson was first elected to the Arizona House of Representatives in 2010. By the end of this year, he will have been in office a total of six years. Instead of pursuing a fourth term (Arizona’s Constitution limits legislative office to four terms or eight years per chamber), Olson has decided to jump for the open congressional seat of retiring Matt Salmon. This ambitious and risky move to pursue a federal office has career politician written all over it and it’s why we label him as a career politician. One other note. Olson also takes on lobbyists on his website but fails to disclose that he received almost $27,000 in campaign contributions from PAC’s and special interest groups during his 2014 campaign.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]This ambitious and risky move to pursue a federal office has career politician written all over it[/pullquote]

Andy Biggs is also running on the anti-establishment theme. On his website, Facebook page and Twitter feed , he tries to make the case he’s a political outsider taking on ‘the establishment.’ One of his press releases even touted an endorsement by Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan who stated Biggs would “challenge the Washington establishment.” His website is littered with endorsements from Arizona politicians, Washington insiders and unions.

Andy Biggs has also been working the Arizona political system for almost 14 years. Even before he was elected to the Arizona Legislature, Biggs was part of Matt Salmon’s inner circle during Salmon’s unsuccessful gubernatorial bid in 2002. That same year, he also ran for political office and was elected to the Arizona House. He was term limited out of the Arizona House in 2010 but jumped over to the State Senate in 2011. He’s been there for almost six years. Total time as a career politician -14 years.

[pullquote align=”left” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Don Stapley has embraced his inner politician and has no problem expressing public displays of that form of affection.[/pullquote]

Then there’s Don Stapley. Throughout Stapley’s messaging, he is proud of being a career politician. His campaign ad boasts about coming from a family of politicians. And of course, he dotes over his 18 years as a Maricopa County Supervisor. Stapley does rail against regulations by the federal government but unlike the other two aforementioned candidates, Don Stapley has embraced his inner politician and has no problem expressing public displays of that form of affection.

Given the current political times, it’s doubtful that Stapley’s strategy will be a path to victory for the nomination but what else will work for a man who dodged seven felony charges because the judge believed political motivations tainted the case?

Altogether, Olson, Biggs and Stapley bring a total of almost four decades of politics to the CD-5 race.

Even with all the unpredictability of the 2016 elections, there is one constant. Voters will no longer tolerate or elect career politicians – a problem that Justin Olson, Andy Biggs or Don Stapley cannot seem to hide or evade.