One of President Joe Biden’s United Service Organizations (USO) appointees attacked members of the military that voted for Reps. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) and Eli Crane (R-AZ-02).
USO Board of Governors member Rebekah Sanderlin accused Republican-voting servicemembers of having no commitment to their country and putting their fellow Americans at risk, claiming they would be at fault for domestic violence arising from economic stresses. Ultimately, Sanderlin said the government shutdown was Republican military voters’ fault. Sanderlin works for a Florida-based consulting firm, Ground Truth Consulting, that the Veterans Affairs Department (VA) works with to provide mental health services outreach.
“If you’re in the military & you voted for them, look to your left & right: YOU did this to your brothers & sisters. I’ve been responding to panicked milspouses all day. I’m pissed at YOU. You did when you supported politicians who want Fox News time more than they want to lead,” said Sanderlin. “So think about that. When that E5’s family can’t eat this month. When that PFC can’t fly home for grandma’s funeral. When student loans & car payments don’t get paid & the stress of it all results in domestic violence, know that YOUR lack of commitment to our country put us here. When you send egoistic clowns to Congress because they’re entertaining, YOU put us all at risk.”
Sanderlin also called out servicemembers who voted for representatives in other states: Matt Gaetz, Tim Burchett, Anna Paulina Luna, Andy Ogles, Matt Rosendale, Dan Bishop, Wesley Hunt, and Cory Mills.
Sanderlin has never served in the military; she is a marketing strategist and former journalist, and the wife of a retired Army Special Forces command sergeant major who served in Afghanistan.
Sanderlin worked with the Obama administration’s Joining Forces initiative. Currently, Sanderlin works with Ground Truth Consulting. Her firm has worked with the Veteran Affairs Department on their Veterans Crisis Line and Make the Connection mental health initiatives for several years.
The consulting firm has also provided services to the defense sector, according to its various consultants’ LinkedIn pages. Neither of two government contract databases — USA Spending or the Federal Procurement Data System — reflected any government contracts with Ground Truth Consulting. The last entity contracted for Make the Connection was J.R. Reingold & Associates from 2013 to 2016 for $25.8 million. The System for Award Management (SAM) database also reflects no awarded contracts at any time, though the consulting firm is registered with SAM.
The firm’s founder, former CEO, and current owner Christopher Murray, a retired Navy rear admiral and commander, also serves on NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP).
Other principals at the firm are husband and wife, Joe and Claire Woodward. Joe, a retired Marine, worked for IBM as a consultant and account executive, and the Defense Department Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) as a deputy director.
As part of his government work, Joe Woodward was part of a DTRA team that developed the Constellation system prototype to track threats of weapons of mass destruction.
Claire Woodward worked as the executive director of several military spouse nonprofits, Blue Star Families and MPower prior to founding the consulting firm.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Northern Arizona University (NAU) will play a key role in an effort to validate indigenous knowledge as scientific knowledge using millions in federal funding.
Ora Marek-Martinez, NAU’s associate vice president of the Office for Native American Initiatives and assistant professor of anthropology, will be part of the University of Massachussetts’ newly-established Center for Braiding Indigenous Knowledges and Science (CBIKS). Marek-Martinez will serve as the CBIKS Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) & Ethics Co-Lead for the center’s Southwest Hub.
Biden’s National Science Foundation (NSF) gave $30 million to CBIKS, a grant lasting five years. CBIKS may qualify for additional federal funding come 2028.
CBIKS researchers will focus initially on collaborating with indigenous Nanwalek Alaskans to study their traditional methods of salmon population preservation, indigenous Hawaiians to study their agricultural and food waste practices, and indigenous Australians to study environmental signs of climate change. Sonya Atalay, CBIKS Director and UMass Amherst Provost Professor of Anthropology, said that current scientific approaches were limited.
“CBIKS is about recognizing that Indigenous knowledge systems carry tremendous information and value, and it’s shortsighted to think that current research practices founded on Western knowledge systems are the only or ‘right’ approach,” said Atalay.
In one of CBIK’s initial postings, Atalay gave credence to the belief that rocks are alive, per indigenous knowledge.
Atalay criticized Michigan archaeologists for “disregard[ing] Native understanding of the rock as an animate being.” The rock in question bears Native American petroglyphs.
The rock wasn’t available for comment.
In order to obtain more indigenous knowledge beyond the consciousness of rocks, CPIKS will interact with 57 indigenous communities through its eight regional hubs across the country and in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.
The initiative is part of a larger effort by the Biden administration to prioritize “indigenous knowledge” into “research, policies, and decision making,” as noted in a memo from the Office of Science and Technology Policy issued last November. The office, newly assigned cabinet-level status by the Biden administration, further declared indigenous knowledge to be “an aspect of the best available science” and directed its inclusion in “Highly Influential Scientific Assessments.” Those assessments directly shape costly federal policies.
The Biden administration wasn’t the first to attempt to assign parity to indigenous knowledge in scientific inquiry: as Washington Free Beacon reported, Canadian researchers reported adverse results after their country incorporated indigenous knowledge into policymaking, ranging from counterproductive at best to dangerous at worst.
“[T]he acceptance of spiritual beliefs as ‘knowledge’ by governments was dangerous because it could be used to justify any activity, including actions that were environmentally destructive,” stated a 2006 academic assessment.
One apparent outcome of catering to indigenous knowledge occurred when Hawaii’s Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) deputy director M. Kaleo Manuel, a Native Hawaiian cultural practitioner, delayed the release of water to combat the Maui fires because he insisted that officials obtain permission from a local taro farm. Taro is integral to Native Hawaiian agriculture and tradition.
Washington Free Beacon also reported some of the early fruits of the Biden administration’s indigenous knowledge labors: reinterpreting time as cyclical rather than sequential, entertaining proposals to pay tribal elders to assist in federal rulemaking, scrapping peer review processes, acknowledging alleged interdimensional relations between animals and humans,
NAU’s involvement in the Biden initiative aligns with the university’s policy of prioritizing Native American individuals in admissions and employment.
In February, NAU established a program providing free tuition regardless of income to Native Americans while requiring a financial threshold for students of all other races. They also pledged $10 million to “indigenous,” or prioritize indigenous people, in their curriculum. The equitable treatment of Native Americans resulted in a boost to the university’s enrollment.
The Office for Native American Initiatives, which Marek-Martinez helps lead, played an integral role in these equity efforts.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) awarded Arizona $850,000 to fund the identification and transportation of illegal immigrant remains.
The DOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Missing and Unidentified Human Remains (MUHR) awarded the funds to the Arizona Department of Public Safety (AZDPS) for the purpose of funding DNA analysis of the illegal immigrants.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ-07) announced the funding in a press release. Grijalva said the program was important to “bring closure” to the families of the deceased.
“Moving forward, we must humanize our border management and address the root causes of migration to prevent the perilous journey that too often results in a tragic loss of life,” said Grijalva.
MUHR is a new federal program that began this fiscal year (October 2022 through September 2023) specifically for the reporting, transporting, forensic testing, and identification of missing persons and unidentified human remains, including illegal immigrants.
So far, MUHR reported issuing six awards through April totaling nearly $4.5 million. Of those grants issued, around $2.5 million were for identifying remains that included illegal immigrants: $996,000 to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, $496,000 to Miami-Dade County in Florida, $996,000 to Texas State University.
Just over 532 illegal immigrant remains have been recovered in the state since 2021, according to a joint data collection effort by medical examiner’s offices in Pima and Maricopa counties. The data collection effort refers to the illegal immigrants as “undocumented border crossers.” Per their data, illegal immigrant remains recovered reached their highest levels since 2007, over 200 annually, in 2020.
This data includes causes of death beyond those related to border crossing activity and beyond the border, with remains included in the count ranging up into Phoenix.
The following causes of death are included in illegal immigrant deaths: asphyxia, blunt force injury, diabetes, drug overdose, exposure, exsanguination (severe blood loss), heart disease, motor vehicle accident, nonviable fetus, other disease, other injury, other injury/homicide, pending, pregnancy complication, skeletal remains, undetermined. A majority of the deaths concern skeletal remains with pending or undetermined causes of death.
In 2021, there were the following deaths: skeletal remains (112), exposure (76), undetermined (14), blunt force injury (11), pending (3, found in desert areas), drowning (3), asphyxia (1), drug overdose (1), and other disease (sepsis, 1).
In 2022, there were the following deaths: skeletal remains (90), exposure (51), undetermined (22), blunt force injury (5), drowning (1), drug overdose (1), asphyxia (1), gunshot wound (1), and other injury (1).
So far this year, there have been the following deaths: exposure (55), skeletal remains (47), undetermined (15), blunt force injury (11), heart disease (3), pending (2), and gunshot wound (1).
Last year’s numbers marked a decline from the highs of 2020 and 2021: there were 173 bodies recovered. This year’s total so far is slightly lower than last year’s: 134, compared to 137 this time last year.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Higley Unified School District (HUSD) will now allow for students to wear more revealing clothing, which parents have criticized as risque.
The district’s new dress code removed previous policy language prohibiting attire which “immodestly exposes the chest, abdomen, midriff, genital area, or buttocks.” The new policy prohibits exposure of undergarments or “undergarment areas” in relation to exposure.
Live in a small, suburban, conservative school district and you think it's fine?
You HAVE to watch this school board meeting to believe it.
One father, Ira Latham, wore a black sports bra with spaghetti straps as an “object lesson,” or visual example, of permitted attire under the new dress code as a criticism of the district’s judgment. Latham said that anyone who took issue with his attire for a board meeting should question among themselves whether it was appropriate for a classroom. Members of the audience appeared amused or visibly uncomfortable with the display.
“Now if you ask me it’s inappropriate for a board meeting,” said Latham. “If you have a dress code policy that allows this in a classroom it does not promote a safe classroom environment as well as limits the amount of distractions in the classroom. I can’t think of any place of work where I can walk in and be taken seriously in something like this.”
Board members Kristina Reese, Tiffany Shultz, and Amanda Wade voted for the policy.
Board members Michelle Anderson and Anna Van Hoek voted against the new policy.
Anderson pointed out that grievances brought up by the community about spaghetti straps and clothing measuring didn’t exist in the now-discarded policy. Anderson also shared that she surveyed “not conservative” or “less conservative” students, namely females, about whether that policy made them feel like their bodies were disrespected or sexualized; reportedly, those surveyed felt the opposite.
“I specifically asked the less conservative females if they felt like having a dress code with our current policy’s expectations — to cover the midriff, the chest, the buttocks — if it made them feel like their body was not okay. Unanimously, they were like, ‘No,’” said Anderson. “It’s important to know that not all females feel a dress code like ours makes them feel shameful or bad about their body.”
Anderson disclosed that some of the female respondents felt like pop culture, not dress codes, marketed the sexualization of females. She also pointed out that modest apparel is a standard outside of schools in nearly all jobs available.
“We are not saying skin is not professional. We are saying that there is a professional and respectable disposition that can show skin in moderation. We are a school district in which students are mandated to attend, we are not a parks and rec entity,” said Anderson. “In school, just like in jobs, there is a time and place for certain dress. Not all places of employment have the same expectations for dress, but the majority of different career fields in jobs available have dress codes that expect employees to cover their midriff, their bust, and their buttocks for decency, for the representation of the business, for safety, for camaraderie and professionalism.”
Anderson also read aloud from the dress codes upheld by the top-10 performing schools in the nation, which had modesty provisions in their policies.
Reese contended that the dress code policy change was a non-issue because students on most campuses were already violating the policy to some extent, namely girls wearing tops that show a little bit of midriff.
In a May board meeting discussing the policy, Shultz and Wade said that nixing the immodesty provision and allowing girls to expose more of their body would lead to less sexualization.
“It makes a female feel bad about their body, and that we’re saying that they need to cover up because of the way it might make someone else feel,” said Wade.
Wade said that the modesty provisions sexualizes kids, and implied that community members concerned with expansive sexual education and LGBTQ+ ideologies ought to be more against modesty-focused dress codes.
“I find the message that we are expressing to our children to look at their bodies in a sexualized nature, we routinely have people in the community come up and talk about how they’re concerned with our efforts to sexualize kids and, in my opinion, that’s what this [dress code policy] does, completely,” said Wade.
Here's more video of the Higley board meeting. Just to be clear, when this school board member refers to sexualizing children, she's saying NOT ALLOWING girls to expose their midriffs is sexualizing them. pic.twitter.com/k90VAJAx5H
— Arizona Women of Action (@azwomenofaction) May 19, 2023
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A long-awaited elections challenge from the 2022 political cycle has finally been filed.
On Tuesday, 2022 Republican nominee for Arizona Attorney General, Abraham Hamadeh, filed an Appeal and Motion to Expedite in the Arizona Court of Appeals.
In a statement Tuesday night, Hamadeh said, “My legal team has just filed our Appeal on our election challenge and Motion to Expedite. Arizonans deserve to have their lawfully elected Attorney General to hold that office, and our state constitution demands it. With the numerous irregularities in the election, the initial trial, and numerous delays at the trial court, it’s long overdue that the judiciary expedite and take our claims seriously that thousands of lawful votes remain uncounted in the closest election in Arizona with the biggest recount discrepancy in history.”
The Arizona Attorney General’s race was decided late in 2022 – and long after the November General Election – with Democrat Kris Mayes over Hamadeh by 280 votes, triggering the Republican’s election challenges.
Hamadeh’s efforts to bring transparency to his razor-thin election result have continued long after his Democrat opponent, Kris Mayes, took office in January. Mayes has continued to show little public interest in the case, allowing her attorneys to handle matters in the courtroom while she continues to revamp the Arizona Attorney General’s Office from the policies of her predecessor, Republican Mark Brnovich.
The comments from Hamadeh also touched on his thoughts regarding the state of election integrity across Arizona and the country – especially how this issue pertained to his specific case. He shared, “Our democracy demands honesty, transparency, and accountability in order to rebuild the trust that so many Arizonans have lost in our elections. Our case seeks to enfranchise over 9,000 voters who voted on Election Day and did their part to have a say in their government. Their constitutional right to vote matters and their votes deserve to be counted.”
The Republican challenger promised a continued fight in court “to ensure that the will of the people is honored, and that our laws are upheld.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The wheels are moving on the vehicle to install abortion as a state constitutional right in Arizona.
Last week, Arizona for Abortion Access announced the start of its signature gathering process in order to give state voters an opportunity to vote on this ballot measure in November 2024. Just under 400,000 valid signatures – 383,923 to be exact – are required to achieve success on this front; however, many more signatures will be needed in order to account for the invalid entries that are gathered over the upcoming year.
The deadline to submit the signatures is July 3, 2024.
According to the overview of the initiative provided to the Arizona Secretary of State, the Arizona Abortion Access Act would “amend the Arizona Constitution to establish a fundamental right to abortion that the State may not deny, restrict or interfere with [1] before the point in pregnancy when a health care provider determines that the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus without extraordinary medical measures unless justified by a compelling governmental interest (defined by the act as a law, regulation, policy, or practice enacted for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of an individual seeking abortion care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and that does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision-making) that is achieved by the least restrictive means, or [2] after that point in pregnancy if a health care provider determines an abortion is necessary to protect the life or the physical or mental health of the pregnant individual; and under which the State may not penalize individuals or entities for assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to abortion.”
Dr. Candace Lew, the chair of Arizona for Abortion Access, issued a statement, saying, “We have written this ballot measure because Arizonans deserve the freedom to make our own decisions about pregnancy and abortion. These deeply personal decisions should be treated with compassion, dignity, and privacy, not political interference.”
One of the state’s top pro-life leaders, Cathi Herrod from the Center for Arizona Policy, quickly indicated her fierce opposition to this ballot initiative. She wrote, “Arizonans are not radical abortion supporters like those at today’s press conference, who called abortion ‘a blessing’ and praised California-style abortion policy like that in the proposed Arizona ballot measure. Abortion activists behind the proposition making abortion a fundamental right in Arizona, held a press conference today to launch their signature gathering campaign to get the initiative on the November 2024 ballot. The measure would tear down virtually all pro-life precautions and make it nearly impossible to regulate abortion.”
Herrod also explained how, if passed, this constitutional amendment would likely allow the likelihood of abortion at all stages of life in the womb, stating, “The broad exemption of ‘mental health’ of the mother after viability is widely understood, even in the courts, to mean virtually anything the abortion provider wants it to mean, including stress or anxiety. Even barbaric partial-birth abortion is legal under this exemption.”
She added, “In addition, the language prohibits virtually all safety precautions and commonsense regulations on abortion, including holding accountable the abortion provider for shoddy work or the sex trafficker who forces girls to have abortions to cover his crimes.”
Arizona for Abortion Access lists endorsements from the ACLU of Arizona, Affirm Sexual and Reproductive Health, Healthcare Rising Arizona, Arizona List, NARAL Arizona, and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona on its website.
On Wednesday, a post on the social media platform “X” appeared to show Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes signing the petition to place this amendment on the 2024 ballot.
In August, Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs also weighed in on the initiative, saying, “As a lifelong advocate for Arizonans’ reproductive freedom, I’m thrilled that we will have the opportunity to make our voices heard next November. Once and for all, we will make clear that the government should not have a say in women’s personal healthcare decisions.”
As a lifelong advocate for Arizonans’ reproductive freedom, I’m thrilled that we will have the opportunity to make our voices heard next November. Once and for all, we will make clear that the government should not have a say in women's personal healthcare decisions.…
