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Citing out-of-date studies that go back ten years and more, even using that well-known scientific journal, Wikipedia, the MPP never references current research on the harms of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 compared to

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

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.

Was Congressman Matt Salmon’s Staffer Politicking on Taxpayer Time?

Every member of Congress and their staff is constantly reminded – especially during election years – that using official government time and resources for partisan politicking, is strictly forbidden.

It’s a simple rule. Don’t spend your time and don’t use taxpayer-paid computers, phones, etc to engage in election activities. Taxpayers don’t want staff working to elect or defeat while they’re on the taxpayer’s dime.

So why would a member of Congressman Salmon’s staff spend time politicking on official time?

The following screenshots were obtained from Facebook and show Salmon staffer Lee Huff making political posts in support of Salmon’s hand-picked successor, Andy Biggs.

In the first screenshot, we see Lee Huff on Facebook sharing a post to an Andy Biggs political event. The post was made Wednesday, July 27th at 12:28 PM. Lee Huff works for Congressman Matt Salmon, who works for the taxpayers of CD-5.

L Huff 072716The next screenshot shows a post from Thursday, July 28th at 10:14 AM from Gilbert, Arizona. Congressman Salmon’s office is located in the heart of downtown Gilbert. Lee Huff resides in Mesa. The content of the post is an attempt at a negative association of Christine Jones with Barack Obama. It is clearly electioneering at 10:14 in the morning from Gilbert, Arizona.

L Huff 072816

The final screenshot shows Lee Huff on Facebook posting on Tuesday, August 2nd at 2:29 PM from Gilbert. This time, the post is an effort to drive web traffic to a dark money-sponsored organization’s website that is trying to mislead voters about Christine Jones.

L Huff 080516

The question I have is who does Lee Huff work for? Is it Congressman Matt Salmon? Is it Matt Salmon’s heir-apparent, Andy Biggs? Or, is it the taxpayers who pay his congressional staffer salary?

Perhaps Lee Huff was off the clock? Maybe using a little vacation time? Maybe he frequents Gilbert coffee shops? I think he has some explaining to do to us watching this election and to his boss, the US taxpayers.

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

Rep Kelly Townsend Releases Open Email to District PC’s

Sonoran Alliance obtained a copy of an email that is currently circulating among Maricopa County Republican Precinct Committeemen. The email is a personal and heartfelt defense and revelation of the difficulty she has had working with the President of the State Senate, Andy Biggs.

Sonoran Alliance has redacted certain personal information from the email.


It is with a heavy heart that I write this email to you this morning.  There is so much I could say to you but I will choose to keep everything to just facts to keep it as short as possible. If there is anything you need clarification on, please send me a message and I can expound on the fact in question.
Last night, Andy Biggs was a guest speaker at the LD meeting. Only a handful of you were there because most were home watching the convention and acceptance speech.  However, there were enough people in attendance that what was said about me by Mr. Biggs, and the chairman’s subsequent reaction, need to be addressed.  I was accused of “threatening Mr. Bigg’s family” and Dennis Brimhall, a supporter of Andy Biggs, refused to allow me to defend myself and threatened to have me forcibly removed.
At issue:
I recently was asked to go on Sunday Square off and describe why I regretted my vote to limit TANF to one year of lifetime eligibility for needy families.  To truly explain it, I would need a two hour show and I only had minutes.  What I did say was that I regret it and last year’s decision was in part because of how I had been “conditioned” by Andy Biggs to not oppose him or I would face the consequences.  Here is why:
  •     In 2013, I went on the radio to discuss the child bride situation in Colorado City, where the police would return a 12 year old runaway to her abuser rather than hold that abuser accountable.  I was asked on radio why people turn a blind eye to the situation, which I answered that although I couldn’t turn a blind I, I pledged to do everything I could to fight pedophilia wherever I could.  I hung up and cried due to the disturbing content of the conversation, and meanwhile the radio host subsequently began to bring up Andy Bigg’s blocking of a Michelle Ugenti bill that would have allowed for sanctioning of that police department. I knew that he might think I was participating in that part of the conversation, so I immediately began to reach out to him to explain I was only talking about child brides.  He didn’t answer so I left a phone message.  After no personal communication, I began asking for a meeting at work.  I sent several emails, as did my assistant, none of which were returned.  The rest of my bills died that session.  I finally asked him if he would speak to me at the end of session, and he agreed and admitted he was angry at me and said I should have never gone on the radio to discuss the issue in the first place.  I told him that I had thick skin and if there was something I did wrong, as Senate President he should sit me down and talk about it, not stonewall me.
  • Although it was very upsetting that Andy Biggs did not allow Rep. Ugenti’s bill to go forward, I had hoped that he would offer an alternative solution to the police scandal in Colorado City.  The following year I saw no such solution.  Instead, all of my bills that went out of the House were not assigned to committee for a great length of time.  I had to call the Speaker-Pro-tem and tell him I was “off the budget” meaning I would vote no on any budget bill until after my bills had been assigned.  I had learned from the previous year that the “stall to kill” tactic could be used to delay the bill from getting through the process in time before the budget was complete and we closed session.  We were in budget negotiations and would close session any day and my bills had yet to be assigned.  I knew at that point I was being punished once again. I wasn’t sure if it was because I spoke out against pedophilia or if this time it was to punish me for my Convention of States bill that he didn’t like.  He claimed last night to only have blocked 5 of my 60 bills.  Although that may be the hard fact, the sad fact is I had to resort to counter tactics each subsequent year to avoid being punished again.  Something I never thought I would have to do within my own party, with someone who was once my #1 political hero.
  • Later that year, his [REDACTED] began sending me Facebook messages asking for money over the course of 6 months, along with asking for advice about a suspected pregnancy.  I am a doula and we were Facebook friends so I suppose [REDACTED] thought I would be helpful.  It was Christmastime and I didn’t have extra funds.  I was asked for food money, for money to keep [REDACTED] phone on, money for various other needs.  I was confused because I thought [REDACTED] had won the publisher’s clearing house, and I also thought he believed that family should help the needy, not the government.  I was dismayed when [REDACTED] told me [REDACTED] had been on food stamps for two years because he wouldn’t help [REDACTED].  Not that I judged [REDACTED] for that, but because he would often scoff at people for “drinking from the public trough” as he always put it.
  • I began to see an incredible level of hypocrisy from a man who was punishing me for wanting to stop pedophiles.  I decided it was time to send him a text and tell him that it was inappropriate for his [REDACTED] to be asking me for money and that it should be he who was taking care of his pregnant [REDACTED]. He returned the email telling me to stay out of it.  Soon thereafter, I received a new message from his [REDACTED] excited that he was buying [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] new [REDACTED] a house.  Relieved, I agreed to see the photo of it.  I was shocked to find a photo of a garden shed with a porch on it.  No running water, one room. [REDACTED] was asking me if it was legal to put it on her mother-in-law’s back yard without a permit and I advised [REDACTED] that as a pregnant mom, she should be in a house with running water.
  • At this point, I was horrified and didn’t know what to think.  I stopped corresponding with [REDACTED] because I knew it would only lead to disaster, which it did.  Shortly thereafter we had to vote on the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).  I was so appalled that there was the argument that families and church should be the ones taking care of their own, not government and all the while I was being asked by this person’s [REDACTED] to support [REDACTED] when he was the millionaire.  It was almost too much to bear at this point.  I took a long time deciding how to vote, and I chose to vote yes on his bill as a Conservative.  But it wasn’t without tears, it wasn’t without feeling horrible and full of questions about rhetoric that really isn’t meaningful when you don’t put your money where your mouth is.  And yes, I partly chose to vote yes because I didn’t want all my hard work going down the drain again next year due to the stall and kill tactic.
There is so much more I could tell you folks, but I will leave it at this to explain to you that I never once threatened his family.  I said that I would bring this to light because it was important for voters to know that things aren’t always as they seem.  As someone who has had to work with hundreds of molested mothers in childbirth and watch the anguish they go through as they deal with their past during that most vulnerable time, as someone who has had this issue strike too close to home, it has become impossible for me to remain quiet about these issues.  I have been told to keep my mouth shut and just take the high road.  Folks, this is too serious.  I was accused of many things last night, and our chairman refused to allow me to defend myself and was threatened.
I am angry.  I am angry at him for allowing the problem in Colorado City to continue, and I am angry that Rep. Ugenti and myself have suffered the consequences ever since for speaking out.  I am about the truth, and at this point, because Mr. Biggs brought it up at the LD meeting and I was not allowed to defend myself, I must send you this most unsavory email.  I have been quiet for four years.  That is long enough.  For the sake of sexually abused men and women everywhere, I tell you the truth this morning, and let the chips fall where they may.
Should you desire confirmation of any of this, I do have the screenshots of the Facebook confirmation. 
Brokenhearted and mad as heck,
Kelly Townsend

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.



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?