Scottsdale’s FnB Restaurant will require patrons to show proof of their vaccination – one of the first restaurants to do so in the valley. However, being vaccinated won’t exempt patrons from masking. FnB will still require that, too.
FnB Restaurant owners Charlene Badman and Pavle Milic issued the vaccination announcement last week on their Instagram page. Their required proof of vaccination upon entry will go into effect on Wednesday.
“With the latest trends regarding the highly transmissible Delta variant, we have decided for the good of all to add another layer of safety for our staff – who is fully vaccinated and still required to wear masks, in addition to the same safety standards pre-vaccine – and our guests who have been vaccinated,” wrote the owners. “Starting Wednesday, August 4th, you will be required to show proof of your coronavirus vaccination card, or a picture of it on your phone. We know some of you might not agree with our decision, but know it comes from a place of deep desire to take care of you and our team. As per usual, thank you for sticking with us during these uncharted times. We have come a long way with vaccinations, let’s not stop halfway.”
The restaurant appears to have taken initiative from the Biden Administration’s latest announcements last week. Last Monday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) declared in an opinion that both public and private entities could legally mandate emergency use authorization (EUA) vaccines like the COVID-19 vaccine. The next day, the CDC updated its guidance to recommend that even fully vaccinated individuals wear masks in areas with high transmission rates.
FDA law states that individuals may be informed of their option to accept or refuse an EUA medical treatment like the COVID-19 vaccine.
“(e) CONDITIONS OF AUTHORIZATION (1) UNAPPROVED PRODUCT (A) Required conditions: With respect to the emergency use of an unapproved product, the Secretary, to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances described in subsection (b)(1), shall, for a person who carries out any activity for which the authorization is issued, establish such conditions on an authorization under this section as the Secretary finds necessary or appropriate to protect the public health, including the following: […] (ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed – […] (III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing the administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”
In their interpretation of the FDA statute, the DOJ OLC opinion claimed that the FDA law granting EUA for vaccines or other medical treatments only pertained to informing the recipient.
“[That section] concerns only the provision of information to potential vaccine recipients and does not prohibit public or private entities from imposing vaccination requirements for vaccines that are subject to EUAs,” wrote the OLC. “By its terms, the provision directs only that potential vaccine recipients be ‘informed’ of certain information, including ‘the option to accept or refuse administration of the product’ […] In the sense used here, the word ‘inform’ simply means to ‘give (someone) facts or information; tell.’ […] Consistent with this understanding, the conditions of authorization that FDA imposed for the COVID-19 vaccines require that potential vaccine recipients receive FDA’s Fact Sheet […] which states that recipients have a ‘choice to receive or not receive’ the vaccine[.] Neither the statutory conditions of authorization nor the Fact Sheet itself purports to restrict public or private entities from insisting upon vaccination in any context.” (emphasis added)
The DOJ OLC did add, in the footnotes, that its opinion didn’t speak to federal, state, or local laws that may restrict vaccine mandates.
Although OLC shared its opinion with the public at the end of last month, it was originally submitted to President Joe Biden’s deputy counsel as early as July 6. The next day, the CDC published its updated guidance on masking.
Governor Doug Ducey has supported voluntary vaccinations. Last week, Ducey issued a statement discussing vaccination’s importance as the Delta variant continues to spread.
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
Landlords across America are owed more than $15.3 billion in rent arrears, and that amount is expected to hit nearly $19 billion by December, according to a report released last week by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia just as a federal moratorium on residential evictions expired.
In Arizona, residential rent debt – including utility costs normally paid to a landlord or management company- is estimated at more than $292,000 million across 43,900 households, That represents 5.9 percent of all renter households in the state, just above the national average of 5.8 percent out of 6.5 million households.
The Fed Reserve statistics are based on estimated rent arrears related directly to a loss of employment revenue during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is estimated that roughly 138,500 Arizonans -and more than another 15 million people nationwide- are in arrears under that criteria alone.
The justice courts in Arizona’s 15 counties are expecting an onslaught of new evictions filings, as well as a push for removal notices from landlords who previously filed for and received an order for eviction but were prevented from enforcement due to the moratorium implemented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Arizona officials received nearly $1 billion in rental assistance, but agencies, renters, and landlords say the programs are paying out at a snail’s pace, leaving renters and landlords alike in a precarious financial position.
Many of the households that are expected to be evicted in Arizona in the coming weeks have reported not having another place to move to, in part due to damaged credit ratings and a loss of savings during the pandemic. On the flip side, many landlords in some parts of the state have a waiting list of prospective tenants ready with cash in hand to move in once non-paying tenants can be forced to move out.
Timed with the Fed Reserve’s July 30 report, President Joe Biden called on state and local governments to “take all possible steps to immediately disburse” the $45 billion of emergency funding approved by Congress as part of the American Rescue Plan.
“There can be no excuse for any state or locality not accelerating funds to landlords and tenants that have been hurt during this pandemic,” the president said. “Every state and local government must get these funds out to ensure we prevent every eviction we can.”
In the meantime, the Federal Housing Finance Agency is requiring all landlords of rental properties with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac mortgages to give renters a 30-day notice to vacate before requiring them to leave, regardless of any local court-issued eviction order.
The CDC’s eviction moratorium had been extended several times before it expired July 31. The moratorium does not relieve renters of the legal obligation of paying rent, as well as any late fees, penalties, or interest. Those ancillary costs owed by renters are not included in the Fed Reserve estimates of renter debt.
The moratorium also required renters to attest to suffering a “substantial loss of household income, loss of compensable hours of work or wages, a lay-off, or extraordinary out-of-pocket medical expenses. In addition, renters were required to certify they have undertaken “best efforts to obtain all available government assistance for rent or housing.”
Renters were also required to pledge their “best efforts” toward making “as close to the full payment as the individual’s circumstances may permit, taking into account other non-discretionary expenses,” and that if evicted, they would likely become homeless.
Eviction protection was waived under the CDC moratorium for renters who violated other terms of a lease, such as being convicted of committing criminal activity on the premises, damaging the property, or violating health ordinances or building code.
It turns out that Arizona Democrats like welfare for the wealthy after all. After spending weeks railing against a historic $1.8 billion, across the board tax cut that will benefit all Arizona taxpayers and small businesses, Democrats in the House and Senate overwhelmingly voted in favor of SB1124, legislation that (as Senator Javan Mesnard described during his vote explanation) is the definition of welfare for the wealthy.
SB 1124 was the ultimate special interest tax package, so loathsome that it was snuck through the last week of session to avoid the stench of lobbyist backscratching. In reality it was the only way they could put taxpayers on the hook for over $200 million to fund an absurd Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and Angel Investor Tax Credit program that will do nothing but line the pockets of wealthy Developers and Venture Capitalists.
But this didn’t seem to bother most Democrats, who on one hand refer to broad based tax cuts as “racist,” but are perfectly fine doling out tax carveouts and subsidies to their wealthy allies.
So now we are stuck with a Venture Capital Program that is government picking winners and losers at its worst. The Angel Investor tax credit shields “qualified investors” (i.e. rich people with political friends) from risk by giving them tax credits for their investments. And the icing on the cake—any profits from these taxpayer backed investments are exempt from capital gains taxes. This is welfare for the wealthy—and Democrats happily passed it with the help of a few Republicans…
TUCSON, AZ – Tucson Sector Border Patrol Agent Dan Cox, and a civilian motorist died in a head-on collision on State Route 86 outside of Sells, Arizona at 12:20 a.m. Saturday, July 31.
According to Chief Patrol Agent John R. Modlin, multiple emergency response agencies, including a life flight, responded to the scene.
A short time after the collision, both the Agent Cox and the sole occupant driver of the other vehicle were pronounced dead on the scene.
In the recent Georgia debacle, the state’s CEOs successfully pushed MLB to punish the legislature by moving the All-Star game from Atlanta to Denver, after allegedly vote-suppressing legislation was passed. Senator Tim Scott asked six of the sanctimonious bullies what provisions they found offensive and why. None had a single answer.
Likewise, President Biden’s speech on “Republican anti-voting laws“ featured plenty of hyperbole. The reforms are “odious” “vicious,“ “unconscionable“ and “21st-century Jim Crow.“ But he failed to provide any examples for his wild accusations of anti-voting effect other than claiming they would legalize the intimidation of voters and the tossing of legal ballots.
In fairness, Biden should have his social media privileges suspended for spreading “misinformation.” Those are provable lies.
The racist voter suppression effort we keep hearing about from the left-wing echo chamber has occurred during a remarkable surge in voting nationally. According to the Census Buteau, nationwide turnout in 2020 was over 68%, the highest in 28 years, with minority voters making a particularly strong showing.
“Non-whites“ comprised a record high 29.0% of all votes cast, up from 20.8% in 2004. In Arizona, the “non-white” turn out surged 17% over 2016.
Yet Democrats insist that voter suppression is so extensive that our democracy is threatened. Photo ID requirements are exhibit A in the argument that Republicans are intentionally driving down minority turnout.
The ACLU claims “identification laws are part of an ongoing strategy to roll back decades of progress in voting rights“. A Washington Post columnist opined that “requiring ID at the polls pushes people into the absentee system, where there are plenty of real dangers.“ (Roger that last observation!)
But Americans are skeptical. They know photo ID is required for flying, drinking, entering certain buildings, picking up tickets and other normal activities. Many blacks feel it is condescending to claim that minority citizens are less able than others to obtain ID. And for those eligible voters who truly lack photo ID, why not provide a free – oh, wait, we already do that.
Evidence strongly suggests that strict ID requirements do not depress minority voting. Long-term studies at the Universities of Delaware, Nebraska and Missouri as well as Harvard all confirmed that “fears that strict ID requirements would disenfranchise disadvantaged populations have not materialized.”
North Carolina, Missouri and Iowa all saw increases in black voter turnout after passing photo ID laws, including a stunning 21% increase in Iowa. Maybe voters appreciate knowing their vote is taken seriously and won’t be canceled by fraud.
Undeterred, congressional Democrats this spring passed HR1, which bans all photo ID requirements, on a party-line vote. The bill federalizes election law. It is a fraudster’s dream.
It would force states to legalize ballot trafficking (a.k.a. “ballot harvesting“), to accept ballots up to 10 days after election day, to allow felons to vote, to accept ballots cast in the wrong precinct, and would bar officials from cleaning up voter rolls or reviewing voter eligibility.
By far the top priority for Pelosi and company is bulk mail voting, through which they have obtained mysteriously positive outcomes the past two elections. This practice, in which millions of ballots are mailed out to voters whether or not they were requested, is also mandated in the bill.
The effect is to remove all safeguards of voter identification and chain of custody. Elections are moved behind closed doors, beyond any supervision or security measures. When combined with ballot harvesting, political “street muscle” prevails. What could go wrong?
Americans aren’t buying the remedies for fake voter suppression. A recent Rasmussen poll found 70% of voters support photo ID, including 69% of blacks. Another survey found 87% opposed to ballot harvesting, 71% against accepting ballots after election day and 63% listing election integrity as a top issue.
The fact is that voting has never been easier. Our voting system is one of the most accessible in the free world. Democrats don’t produce cases of actual interference with voting rights to support their frenzied claims because they are vanishingly rare.
Democrats may wish for voter suppression to exist to support their agenda, but that doesn’t make it so.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
