by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Jun 11, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
When the Supreme Court was debating the landmark Dobbs abortion case, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer shouted threats (“you will reap the whirlwind…”) at them from the courthouse steps. Thus, the last doubt was obliterated that the unquestioned authority of the Court was under serious attack.
An independent judiciary is the key to maintaining our constitutional republic. It is the reckoning mechanism which keeps us on track, muting the potential excesses of popular democracy. Americans once understood this and valued our judiciary, even when it sometimes worked against their individual interests.
But the times, they are a’changin. Americans have now divided into warring classes who believe that in the pursuit of power and short-term goals, a conscientious judiciary is often in the way.
At least until recently, school children were taught that our founders, in order to dilute the power of centralized government, created three branches. The legislative makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judiciary ensures that laws are enforced in accordance with statutes and the Constitution.
In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt clashed with the Supreme Court when their rulings thwarted his plans to assert federal control over wide swaths of the American economy. The Justices could not find in the Constitution’s list of enumerated powers any which authorized the New Deal legislative barrage.
They were right, but Roosevelt’s response was to propose “packing the court,” expanding the number of Justices, and increasing his power. Roosevelt’s view of the court as an obstacle rather than a necessary guard rail shocked many Americans of the day. The plan eventually failed, although most of the New Deal was enacted anyway.
Yet the status of the judiciary branch in our federal system is showing deterioration today. Leftist ideologues conduct protests of court decisions in front of Justices’ residences when they render unpopular decisions. That’s clearly contrary to federal law yet they suffer no repercussions. The Biden Department of Justice simply ignores them.
Justices are personally harassed by activists. Angry partisans confront them and their families in restaurants and public spaces. The Justices, particularly those of the pro-Constitution persuasion, are faced with spurious charges of ethical violations and demands for recusal. That’s especially ironic in the case of Justice Clarence Thomas, who has a well-deserved reputation for willingness to vote against his own political positions.
The Arizona Supreme Court also passed down a controversial abortion decision, ruling that the Arizona legislature, following the reversal of Roe, had effectively reinstated a restrictive Civil War era law. In response, a special interest group known as “Vote Them Out” is attempting to remove justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King for failing to support their pro-abortion policy agenda.
In Arizona, Supreme Court Justices and most lower court judges are not elected but appointed and then undergo periodic retention elections which are intended to weed out incompetent or corrupt judges. Although few judges are not retained, the system works to depoliticize the judicial selection process and give voters input into keeping judges.
It is this retention system itself which Vote Them Out is attacking by forcing Bolick and King to, in effect, run for their own seats in a political style campaign. There are no credible arguments that either Justice is incompetent or corrupt or that they didn’t provide constitutional authority for their rulings. The issue, again, is simply that their decision was unpopular, at least with Vote Them Out.
As Justice Bolick pointed out in an Arizona Republic op-ed, judges in a merit system are handicapped in a politics-based election. They can’t personally raise funds or seek endorsements. They have strict ethical limits on what they can discuss. Their opponents have no such restraints.
It’s telling that justices at all levels are commonly referred to as “liberal” or “conservative.” Such political labels should only matter if justices are policymakers, which they are not. The critical descriptor which matters for justices is “pro-Constitution” versus “pro-some interest group’s opinion.”
Americans seem to have little regard for the values and institutions which are the foundations of our own national greatness. Our independent judiciary distinguishes us from corrupt autocracies everywhere and throughout time. We disrespect it at our own peril.
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.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | May 27, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
UNRWA, the “United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,” as the name implies, provides humanitarian aid exclusively to Palestinian victims of war. Like all UN agencies, it is purportedly politically neutral and concerned with mitigating conflict, not participating in it. Unfortunately, UNRWA is neither.
UNRWA has a long history of antisemitism in support of the Islamist cause. For example, UNRWA uses books in their schools containing blatantly antisemitic passages. The donor nations that support UNRWA have objected but UNRWA’s promises to remove the offending passages somehow never happen.
A greater concern is that UNRWA allows terrorists to hide their rocket launchers and other weapons in UNRWA facilities, including schools. UNRWA’s staff has failed to call out the practice and in fact, have joined it.
We also know, due to diligent research by UN Watch, that some of the 13,000 UNRWA employees in Gaza pitched in to help with the horrific massacre of Israelis last October 7. These self-described committed humanitarians voluntarily committed rape, torture, and murder on defenseless victims. Other UNRWA members praised their colleagues for the good work.
Now it has come out that senior officials have stolen food and supplies intended for Gazans. One whistleblower working at a shelter tells of agreeing with co-workers to get out the truth about the corrupt administration even though they knew they would be subject to reprisals.
He told how “displaced people in the external shelter do not get their right to food and non-food aid, but rather it is distributed at night and sold in front of our eyes and everyone who speaks is transferred….” Another told of how “district officials rummaged through the aid cartons and stole the items and their brothers sold them.”
Many others have reported extensive profiteering by UNRWA staff, supported by a compliant administration that refuses to call out the thieves and punishes those who report it. Local Gazans are fed up.
UNRWA officials of course deny the charges, lumping them with ongoing criticism they are subjected to from right-wing crazies. Any other agency with the track record of UNRWA would be designated an enemy pro-terrorist organization.
It might not surprise those familiar with the Obama-Biden history to know that the U.S. continues to be a faithful funder of UNRWA, contributing around $400 million last year. Admittedly, this amount wouldn’t cover the annual overpayment in food stamps, but it’s still boneheaded to—again—support an organization that is our deadly enemy.
The outrages of UNRWA present an opportunity to seriously re-examine our relationship with the U.N. School children are taught that the United Nations was formed by the victorious allies at the end of World War II to assure the end of such destructive wars. It was a time of great hope and idealism.
Unfortunately, looking back after nearly 80 years and $1 trillion, the dreams have died. The U.N. is widely regarded, even by many senior officials, as a bloated, corrupt bureaucracy dedicated mostly to its own perpetuation.
It had nothing to do with the great international relations success of our time, the ending of the Cold War. On the contrary, the Soviet Union ignored every U.N. entreaty but had to finally stand down when its socialist economy could no longer protect itself from America’s military might.
The U.N. has grown from 51 original member nations to 192 today. Unfortunately, most of these are small satellite states who supported first Communist dictatorships and now Islamist autocracies. Meanwhile, Russia and China, two of the most aggressive threats to world peace, are permanent members of the Security Council. They veto attempts to counter their atrocities, like Russia’s unwarranted attacks on several former satellites and the Chinese genocide of the Uyghurs.
Meanwhile, the U.N. continues to disappoint when it counts. During the COVID pandemic, the U.N.’s World Health Organization, rather than providing the medical leadership needed, collapsed into politicization, lying to help the Chinese Communists cover up the origins of the virus. Several voting members of the U.N. Human Rights Council still practice slavery.
The world is not a better nor safer place because of the U.N. It resists meaningful reforms. We should just leave.
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.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | May 10, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
Mass protests have become popular with the radical Left because they work. They can achieve results unattainable through the political process or the courts by producing chaos and intimidating the cowardly leaders of our universities and government.
When the antisemitic, pro-Islamist demonstrations broke out on multiple university campuses this spring, most Americans assumed it was just naïve, ill-educated kids doing their thing. Why wouldn’t they? Protesting is a hoot. You’re showered with attention. You may even see yourself on the evening news. The gold star goes for being arrested and thrown in jail, where you are sure to be released the next morning.
The modern political protest movement began in 1968 with draft resisters who successfully opposed the Vietnam war. Another victory for the mob came from the assault on the World Trade Organization conference in Seattle in 1999. Those riots are credited with establishing the international anti-globalization movement and influencing the Clinton administration to issue an executive order requiring environmental reviews for trade deals.
In 2011, the “Occupy” Wall Street type movements were focused on income inequality. Again, victory was achieved when cowed Democrats subsequently backed higher taxes and more government handouts.
The George Floyd riots of 2020 were possibly the most successful of all. A single incident of bad policing by a rogue cop touched off riots in many American cities and even internationally. The “mostly peaceful protests” included vandalism, theft, and property destruction for up to 100 days in cities like Portland, Oregon.
The consequences were light, the rewards abundant. Kamala Harris supported a bail fund for criminal protesters, few of whom faced jail time anyway. The Democrat convention of 2020 decline to condemn the rioting.
Meanwhile, Democrat cities around the country slashed police funding, eliminated cash bail, and stopped making criminal arrests in response to the rioters’ demands. The predictable result was a spike in urban crime which is still raging, driving out businesses and further decimating once proud cities.
The image of well-meaning but ignorant students out on a lark was partly true. Many riot participants were in fact useful dupes, curiously uninformed about the activities of Hamas or other Islamist groups. They seemed unaware that their chant “from the river to the sea” was a call for eradicating Jews. The orderly rows of similar tents also suggested the protests were not entirely “organic.”
The Wall Street Journal uncovered the mystery by discovering an influential activist website directing affairs for anarchists like Antifa and other career radicals. Their mission is to create chaos and eventually overturn the social order.
Thus, “organizers should not concern themselves with de-escalation or remaining peaceful” they advise. “In order for this crisis to develop further, student occupations should take buildings wherever possible” to further the goal of “making it more expensive” for administrations to refuse their demands. Putting up tents is highly recommended because it defies school policy and elicits a response, which is the point of the exercise.
This is a crisis with enormous implications. President Biden is terrified of losing left-wing political support. In spite of the fact that a clear majority of Americans do not support Hamas or the campus protesters, he took a powder again, condemning the campus protestors but also “those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians.”
The clueless president of Columbia did the exact wrong thing by agreeing to negotiate with the campus terrorists on their demands. Despite the outpouring of hate and antisemitism on her campus, she praised them for fighting for the “rights of Palestinians” and against the “humanitarian tragedy in Gaza.”
The protesters’ demands are ambitious. They include the divestiture of funds from Israel which would have the effect of financially ostracizing Israelis and a cease-fire in the Gaza war, which would hand a critical victory to Hamas and condemn Israel to a future of perpetual Islamist attacks.
Psychologists and common sense tell you the behavior that is rewarded gets repeated. America’s enemies win again.
We are a constitutional republic with a structure artfully designed to make policies and resolve disputes based on majority rule, while respecting minority rights. Conceding to the Islamist- inspired mob the right to set American public policy is a grave mistake.
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.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Apr 26, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
Joe Biden loves to give away money, especially if it’s not his own. He has spent trillions of dollars for political benefit that didn’t need otherwise to be spent.
The recipients laud his compassion and generosity. Common Americans though are trapped in an inflationary spiral while our grandchildren face an unpayable bill.
Thus, in a recent presentation about his second attempt to forgive student loan debt, he actually bragged about the hundreds of billions it would cost. He twice mentioned the fact that many blacks would receive benefits.
He became so consumed in self-congratulation that he apparently lost awareness of how blatant his political pandering was. We know black voters are a key demographic in play in the upcoming election.
Biden’s sheer enthusiasm for spending again evidenced itself in his response to the Baltimore bridge collapse. His first reaction was to guarantee that the federal government would underwrite the entire cost of reconstruction. What a guy!
Neither offer made sense. Regarding the student loan debt, the Supreme Court had affirmed that the Constitution means what it says, that the power to initiate spending lies solely with Congress. Most public criticism focused on the obvious unfairness of the policy, how it would disadvantage those who had been responsible in favor of those who wished to renounce their legal obligations.
Biden’s bridge proposal was also nonsense. The bridge isn’t owned by the United States. There is no conceivable reason for the federal government to be deemed responsible for its repair. The bridge was demolished by a cargo ship, in an industry which insures heavily against such misfortunes. Other jurisdictions have also acknowledged partial responsibility.
Here’s the problem with the mindset that it’s okay to get involved with all these giveaways: we don’t have the money. We’re seriously in debt, with expenses vastly exceeding our income and no plan in place for repayment or even deficit reduction.
Biden is hardly the only politician who has deduced that spending other people’s money (OPM) can win elections. Even many Republicans, to their shame, support the spending juggernaut. The spenders are the moral equivalent of a wastrel with no money and no job, with bankruptcy looming, who continues to pick up tabs and buy pricey gifts with credit cards he has no intention of paying off.
Still, the spenders know that Americans have mostly normalized excessive spending even when unnecessary. So, Biden was able to propose a whopping $7.3 trillion budget for next year (up $500 billion in the last year alone) without provoking much outrage.
The $2 trillion spent on COVID relief accomplished nothing. It was mainly an excuse to push more money out the door. At least it was supposed to be temporary. Biden’s budget though would pocket the COVID bump and add yet more permanent spending, mostly on programs for “climate change” and other boondoggles. A $10 trillion budget by 2033 is projected.
What can’t go on forever won’t. Our present course is unsustainable. Income tax revenues are soaring, yet the debt continues to grow. We are using borrowed money to pay the debt interest, which has surpassed all budget items except entitlement programs.
How do we get out of this death spiral? The left’s favorite solution is to raise taxes. That doesn’t work. The historical record shows that tax increases put us further in the hole.
For example, the Obamacare tax increases raised $1.4 trillion but so hindered economic growth, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that the feds lost $3.8 trillion in revenues. In contrast, President Clinton signed the 1997 Republican tax and spending cuts. Four years of budget surpluses ensued.
It’s well known that reform of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is necessary for a balanced budget. Yet both parties are interested only in demagoguing the other if they catch them even considering the issue. If the politicians, including Donald Trump, continue to insist on prioritizing incumbent reelection, the only way out may be for the people to take matters into our own hands.
Anybody else interested in seriously revisiting the notion of amending the Constitution to mandate a balanced budget? Sure, it may (or may not) be difficult, but the consequence of doing nothing is surely worse.
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.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Apr 14, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
The notion of color-blindness derives from the principle that moral persons of conscience should disregard race in judging their fellow human beings. It is a sincere aspiration but not necessarily meant as a description of reality. It was once considered a non-controversial mainstay of the American ethos.
No longer. The term “color-blind” has become an object of scorn among America’s elite. The usual crowd directing our national groupthink has determined that proclaiming color-blindness is intentionally deceptive, simply a cheap cover for racism.
Thus, Critical Race Theory guru Ibram X. Kendi informs us that the most threatening racist movement is not the “alt-right’s drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s desire for a race-neutral one.’ Best-selling author Robin DiAngelo claims that the color-blind strategy boils down to “pretend we don’t see race and racism will end.”
One critic alleges that color blindness was “developed in the neo-conservative think tanks during the 1970s.” Another condemns color blindness as “part of a long-standing whiteness protection program, associated with indigenous dispossession, colonial conquest, slavery, segregation, and immigrant exclusion.”
It’s not clear where these professors acquired their bizarre claims, but the historical record tells a far different story. The ideal of color-blindness was not birthed in some loony right-wing outpost but was the philosophical basis of the fight against slavery. As author Coleman Hughes points out, color-blindness was the driving passion of civil rights leaders from Frederick Douglass to Martin Luther King.
Wendell Phillips, known as “abolition’s golden trumpet,” called in 1865 for the “creation of a government color-blind” in which all laws referencing race would be repealed. Later, the idea of color-blindness was the inspiration for the battle against Jim Crow.
In the 1896 Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, which affirmed the discredited “separate but equal” doctrine, the lone dissent was from Justice John Marshall Harlan. His declaration still rings through the ages that “our constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens.”
When then-NAACP attorney Thurgood Marshall, later a Supreme Court Justice, argued segregation cases in the courts, he referred often to the Plessy dissent. “Our constitution is color-blind” became the mantra of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Color-blindness in the 1940s was the first demand of the original March on Washington, which successfully pressured FDR to integrate the defense industry. Color-blindness was also the first argument made in the NAACP’s appellate brief supporting the Brown v. Board decision, which finally reversed the Plessy decision in the 50s.
Americans sometimes forget how much progress was made when color-blindness was the guiding principle driving racial progress. By the 1950s, America was clearly lifting itself out of its deeply racist past. Economic opportunities for blacks were burgeoning. Black families and churches were strong. A solid black middle class was forming while black professionals and political leaders became more common.
So, what happened? How did we end up with a race-drenched public life where “systemic racism” is considered the accepted explanation for just about everything bad that happens. Award-winning public intellectuals teach that the races are inherently different and that treating individuals differently based on race is not only acceptable but desirable.
Citizens grounded in the philosophy of individual liberty are difficult for centralized government to control. The Marxist-inspired left clearly wants Americans to identify as members of an oppressed group, be it race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Life’s failures and disappointments can then be blamed on racism, even where none is readily apparent, and used to stoke racial resentments. Any successes or achievements are attributed not to individual merit or diligence but to the privileges bestowed on favored groups by government.
Ward Connerly, a leader in the anti-affirmative action movement, tells critics “I don’t care what color you are. Do you care what color I am?” That simple question may be the key to a brighter racial future.
Americans must decide if we really want to turn away from our Enlightenment-based notions of racial equality and once again embrace sanctioned racism. We will never achieve a society in which race really doesn’t matter if we can’t agree on the most basic principle of all— absolute equality granted by the Creator.
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.
