Jennifer Reynolds: Arizona’s Common Core Rebrand is Just Lipstick on a Pig!

by Jennifer Reynolds, publisher of Arizonans Against Common Core.

A Rebrand of Common Core is coming unless we stop it through our combined voices speaking against the proposed 2016 English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics Standards. Very little has changed with these 2016 Standards and we will still have Common Core!

As suspected the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) and State Board of Education (SBE) are trying to “Rebrand Common Core” with their latest 2016 draft of the English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics Standards. The ADE Working Groups were tasked to review and incorporate our public comments which have been ignored. Our pleas to take out the “prescriptive examples and developmentally inappropriate standards for ELA and Mathematics” have been brushed aside, and the ADE Working Groups proceeded with the 2nd rewrite with very little changes to the Arizona’s College and Career Ready Standards (aka Common Core). If you put lipstick on the Common Core pig, it is still a pig!

Here are the reviews that our combined groups- Arizonans Against Common Core, Opt Out AZ and “Mommy Lobby AZ”- submitted to the SBE K-12 Standards website on October 3 for the draft 2016 ELA and Mathematics Standards. Parents voices were NOT heard, our comments were NOT incorporated, and here we have another “Rebrand of Common Core” if we let this happen just like we saw in 2013 with the renaming of Common Core to “Arizona’s College and Career Ready Standards.”

WE NEED YOUR VOICES at the Arizona Standards Development Committee Meeting on December 14:

December 14, 9am at the ADE building (1535 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85007). If you have commented on the draft 2016 ELA and Math standards AND/OR if you are fed up with what is happening in your child’s classroom with the Common Core standards and testing please show up and let your voices be heard. Nothing will change in Arizona if the 2016 ELA and Mathematics standards are approved by the Arizona Standards Development Committee and the State Board of Education which will happen with a subsequent vote. Common Core will be here to stay if we don’t rise up and stop it!

CAN’T ATTEND THE MEETING? Who to contact about the Rebrand of Common Core?

Governor Ducey initiated the “Arizona Standards Development Committee” to “review and replace the Common Core Standards”(http://education.azgovernor.gov/edu/arizonas-academic-standards) on March 23, 2015 and these are his direct words, “As you know, I am against Common Core and spoke out against it on the campaign trail. That has not changed. Like you, I have high expectations and am for high standards for our students. We cannot excel without them. So, Arizonas standards must reflect the goals, expectations, and input of Arizonas parents and teachers. I encourage every Arizonan to get engaged in this process of creating new standards and assist the State Board of Education in the work ahead. Attend public meetings. Make calls. Write letters. Use social media. Make your voice heard. If like me, you are opposed to the federal governments increased involvement in our K-12 system, this is the quickest, best and most responsible way to fix it. If Arizona is going to be the best place in the nation to educate a child, then Arizonans must lead the way.” (http://azgovernor.gov/governor/news/im-arizona-standards) ”

Contact Governor Ducey’s Senior Education Policy Advisor Dawn Wallace: dwallace@az.gov or 602-542-1316.

Diane Douglas ran on the campaign promise to “Stop Common Core.” Contact Superintendent Douglas and her staff who ran the ADE Working Groups and who are “Rebranding Common Core:” Superintendent Diane Douglas: Diane.Douglas@azed.gov or 602-542-5423

Carol Lippert, Associate Superintendent, High Academic Standards: Carol.Lippert@azed.gov or 602-364-1985.

Jonathan Moore, Deputy Associate Superintendent, K-12 Standards: Jonathan.Moore@azed.gov or 602-364-2810.

Suzi Mast, Director of K-12 Mathematics Standards: Suzi.Mast@azed.gov or 602-364-4030.

Sean Ross, Director of K-12 ELA and Humanities Standards: Sean.Ross@azed.gov or 602-542-6342

Executive Director at the State Board of Education (SBE)- Karol Schmidt: Karol.Schmidt@azsbe.az.gov or 602-542-5057

Let our voices be heard that “WE WILL NOT ACCEPT A REBRAND OF COMMON CORE on our watch!”

For our precious children,

-Jennifer Reynolds
http://arizonansagainstcommoncore.com/

If you are just now waking up to the WAR that has been going on all around you for the last 5 years, READ MORE HERE

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!

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?

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 http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2464591 compared to http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2300494

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

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.

 

Special Interest spends nearly $700K to re-elect Bob Burns

SIspends
NEARLY THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS SPENT
AND THEY AREN’T DONE YET!

In campaign finance reports submitted today, it’s reported that Save Our AZ Solar spent $667,082.04 with the hopes of getting Bob Burns re-elected to the Corporation Commission. When you dive a little deeper into the numbers you’ll see that Save Our AZ Solar received $700,000 from SolarCity. And ALL of this spending took place over a 16 day period – August 2 – August 18.  You can review the finance report here.

Here’s a quick breakdown:

Mailing services (mail pieces) – $436,097.16
Digital ads – $225,000
Robocalls – $5,984.88

In Burn’s campaign rhetoric he speaks often about “special interests” trying to stack the deck at the Corporation Commission.

This infusion of cash from SolarCity in support of Burns is starting to make us believers.

.

Uh Yeah, Dr. Kelli Ward Is Definitely Pro-Life

Sinister rumors started by the McCain campaign claim that Dr. Kelli Ward is not pro-life. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Here’s what pro-life leaders are saying about Dr. Kelli Ward:

Kelli Ward has received the powerful endorsement of the doctor who has been called the “Father of the Pro-Life Movement” as well as Arizona pro-life activist Christine Accurso.

Accurso said,

“John McCain has voted in favor of embryonic stem cell research. Dr. Kelli Ward is an outstanding pro-life leader, and I have been honored to watch her fight for the lives of the unborn on the Arizona Senate floor. Her passion, dedication, medical expertise, and commitment to solid pro-life principles are unwavering and the reason she has my vote! I endorse Kelli, and I urge all Arizonans to vote Kelli Ward for U.S. Senate!”

In May, Cathi Herrod, President of the Center for Arizona Policy set the record straight saying,

“For the record, Kelli Ward had a 100% pro-life voting record as a State Senator. Never wavered.”

Ward was endorsed in May by Phyllis Schlafly who successfully inserted the pro-life plank into the Republican platform at the 1976 Republican National Convention.

Dr. John Grady, a distinguished physician and surgeon and nationally recognized author and lecturer, said

“In the Arizona Senate, Kelli Ward had a 100% pro-constitution and pro-life record. In the U.S. Senate, Dr. Kelli Ward will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. She will respect and defend the rights and dignity of all Americans — both born and unborn.”

Dr. Grady practiced in general medicine, surgery, and trauma and has delivered more than 3,000 babies. Dr. Grady was also the founder of the first state and national pro-life organizations. In 1966, seven years before Roe v. Wade, he authored the small book, Abortion – Yes or No, which became the most widely read treatise in the world on the subject and the primer for the pro-life movement.

Dr. Grady stated,

“There are many vital issues now before us, but the issue for which this nation will be judged by God is the wholesale slaughter of the unborn, with more than 50 million innocent unborn babies killed by abortion since 1973. If this nation is to survive, we must ensure that constitutional judges are appointed, especially to the Supreme Court. To do this we must have a strong majority of truly conservative Republican Senators who will uphold the Constitution. Senator Kelli Ward will be one of the loyal Americans who will lead that restoration. Sadly, John McCain’s record shows that he is not the solid conservative and uncompromising constitutional Republican we need in these critical times.”

Kelli said at a recent town hall meeting:

“Attack ads may twist my words out of context to paint a false picture of who John McCain wants you to think I am, but my 100% Pro-Life Voting Record tells who I really am and, most importantly, how I’ll vote in the United States Senate.

“I believe human life is a precious gift from God that begins at conception and deserves the full and equal protection of our laws.

“No matter how they slice and dice a quotation from a liberal newspaper, a 100% Pro-Life voting record tells everything you need to know.

“Senator McCain has voted dozens of times for Planned Parenthood funding and fetal tissue research. Now he wants to hide his record of supporting extreme leftist judges like the ACLU’s Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Breyer.

“McCain’s campaign rhetoric? Or my voting record? You decide.”

Guest Opinion: Single Shot Syms

By Cactus Cantina Chats

With ten more days remaining until the August 30th primary election let’s focus on Legislative District 28 (LD 28).  Republican primary voters have a real chance to nominate a successful, well-educated female candidate to serve on their behalf in one of two legislative House seats for the next two years.  Maria Syms is the only candidate running in LD28 with the potential to win in November and serve honorably for the State of Arizona.  Please use your two votes to push her through the Republican primary.

Let’s take a look at Syms’ competition for the two House seats, and then evaluate Syms’ impressive background:

Ken Bowers, Jr. is the final candidate running for the Arizona House. It is quite difficult to know too much about who he is and where he stands on the issues because he has also decided to ignore candidate surveys issues by different associations and groups representing causes or industries throughout Arizona. He seems to only care about reforming Arizona’s correctional system and hasn’t given much thought to the broader issues facing Arizona’s future.

Alberto Gutier, III is an active PC in LD28.  Unfortunately, he has not taken the time to fill out any candidate surveys or set up a website sharing his viewpoints on the issues. Nice guys typically don’t finish first in a competitive legislative race.

Mary Hamway is an uber liberal Republican In Name Only (RINO) candidate who is a retread from the 2014 election cycle. Hamway has spent so much time as a Paradise Valley town councilmember raising taxes and cutting funding for cops that she single-handedly jeopardizes a prosperous future for Arizona.  Since Mary lacks the spine to vote publicly she and several of her other Big Government crony councilmembers rely on closed door executive sessions so they don’t have to truly make a public statement of town council matters.  Hamway talks out of both sides of her mouth if you can bear to listen to her speak.  Hamway has been an arduous proponent of Medicaid expansion and common core over the past several years.  Hamway self-funded her 2014 loser campaign to the tune of nearly $100,000. After she lost to Bolick, she had her husband make a $500 campaign contribution to liberal pro-choice Democrat Eric Meyer. It is not surprising Hamway has been endorsed by the former Mayor of Paradise Valley, Scott Le Marr, who once served on the Planned Parenthood board.

Matt Morales is a moderate Republican precinct committeeman (PC) in LD28 who has been a registered lobbyist on behalf of the vaping and gaming industries.  Need we highlight any more of his resume to illustrate that he is not a conservative choice.  Morales likes to tell his fellow Republican voters how he encouraged Kate McGee in 2010 to use her maiden name “Brophy” to get elected to the Arizona House of Representatives.  In 2014, Morales boasted of being Adam Driggs’ campaign manager.  At the same time Morales worked on an Independent Expenditure (IE) to benefit only McGee and Driggs in the general election.  Considering there was one additional Republican on the ballot for the other House seat this speaks volumes to Morales’ lack of character in electing Republicans to two House seats. One last point: it is laughable that Morales’ campaign signs say “conservative” and “personal freedom.”  He answered the Arizona Voter Guide’s survey which is sponsored by Center for Arizona Policy as supportive of a living Constitution.

Maria Syms

Maria Syms

Fortunately, LD28 has Maria Syms as their only conservative choice!  She has taken the time to thoughtfully share her views on the issues in support or opposition against many policy issues facing Arizona.  Syms has served honorably on her short time on the Paradise Valley Town Council.  There aren’t many city elected officials who don’t vote in lockstep to vote for a tax increase, but Syms is one who has encouraged thoughtful conversation while holding the line on tax increases. If she wasn’t running for the Legislature she would be a perfect addition to Arizona’s Justice system.  Her past job titles include: Assistant U.S. Attorney, Senior Adviser to Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich plus she is a Mom of three children spanning the school choice spectrum so she fully grasps education and opportunity for all!

When you vote by early ballot, or vote in person on August 30th please only vote for Syms! She is the real deal and the only choice to represent LD28 honorably.

Follow the Money: SolarCity to Bob Burns

“Follow the Money”

SolarCity, a company who has one of the largest financial stakes in decisions that are made by the Corporation Commission is pouring money into Bob Burns re-election campaign through the AZ “Save Our Az Solar” committee.  From mail pieces and robo calls, to Google and Facebook ads.

What they don’t want Republican voters to know is that they are desperately hoping their candidate makes it out of the Primary so they can team him up with the two Democrats in the General election.

Yes, that’s correct; the SolarCity Dream Team – Bob Burns and the two Democrats.

Oh, how the money and games flow, not quite like the Game of Thrones but still intriguing:
(click on chart)

SolarCity Web

 

 

Links:

Save Our AZ Solar

Energy Choice For America

Kris Mayes appointed to the Energy Foundation’s board of directors

Energy Foundation financials

Scott Hempling’s clients

Dan Barr – Attorney for Checks and Balances

Outside groups target Arizona

SolarCity funded group targeting commission

.

Commissioner Bob Burns Wants APS To Control Your Thermostat

Commissioner Burns would like APS to have access into your home to be able to adjust your thermostat.  He’s up for re-election. Is this the representation you want?

Arizona Corporation Commission Clean Elections Debate – Monday, August 8, 2016