by Paul Parisi | Dec 6, 2024 | Opinion
By Paul Parisi |
Free speech is under attack in America today. When the government or social media platforms, often working together, accuse someone of spreading “misinformation,” what they’re really saying is that person is lying. But who decides what’s true and what isn’t? The power to label something as misinformation or disinformation is the power to suppress free speech, and that’s a dangerous weapon.
Social media “fact checkers” routinely suppress opposing views by labeling them misinformation. This censorship is a direct attack on free speech. When the government and the media control the narrative, they manipulate public opinion to maintain their power. Just think about this: The federal government has repeatedly told us the southern border is secure. Yet, over 11 million foreign nationals have crossed illegally in less than 3 ½ years. That’s not misinformation or disinformation—it’s a bold-faced lie.
Our constitutional republic cannot survive if we allow our leaders and their allies in the media to deceive us with lies and propaganda. When the Soviets did it, we called it propaganda. Why are we afraid to call it out when it happens here?
The American people deserve the truth—the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” actually originated from a Russian word, dezinformatsiya, which means deliberately deceiving public opinion. In fact, Joseph Stalin established a Special Office of Disinformation in 1923, and the Great Soviet Encyclopedia defined it as a way to manipulate public perception. Propaganda was a cornerstone of Soviet control, rewriting history to align with the government’s ideology. Statues were replaced, public holidays were altered, and the past was reshaped to serve the present.
Does any of this sound familiar? In America today, our founding fathers are being vilified, statues are being torn down, and holidays like Columbus Day are now considered controversial. Meanwhile, new holidays are created to rewrite the narrative. Even school names are changed to reflect disdain for our past. As George Orwell warned in 1984, “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”
The Soviets used propaganda to divide people and create class struggles, all to maintain totalitarian control. Are similar tactics being used in America today under the guise of combating “misinformation” and “disinformation”? Truth was once a cornerstone of American values, as seen in the mythical story of young George Washington admitting, “I cannot tell a lie.” But today, lies and deception have become tools to manipulate public opinion.
The American people deserve better. They deserve leaders who revere the truth and hold it sacred—not ones who weaponize misinformation to cling to power. It’s time to demand the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Paul Parisi is the Arizona Grassroots Director for Our America.
by Paul Parisi | Sep 3, 2024 | Opinion
By Paul Parisi |
On August 26, 2024, Our America Hometown Heroes made their voices heard at the Phoenix City Council meeting, standing up for local control and the autonomy of the Phoenix Police Department (PPD). Wearing their signature yellow T-shirts, several Hometown Heroes rallied and spoke during the public comment period, advocating for the city’s ability to manage its own police force without federal intervention.
In stark contrast, a smaller group of Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists attended the same meeting, calling for a DOJ Consent Decree that would place the PPD under court-ordered oversight. Their demands stemmed from a controversial June report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which criticized the PPD and pushed for federal oversight despite the department’s voluntary efforts to implement sweeping reforms.
Our America’s presence at the meeting was bolstered by leaders of organizations representing minority communities, such as BLEXIT Arizona, the Hispanic Liberty Alliance, and the Independent Women’s Network. This coalition underscores the broad support for local control.
During the meeting, four speakers from Our America took to the podium, urging the Phoenix mayor and council to continue the reforms that have already significantly reduced crime while safeguarding all citizens’ civil rights.
Reflecting on her long history of positive engagement with law enforcement, Bella Ceballos-Viner shared, “For over 25 years, I have had nothing but great experiences, and I speak on behalf of my Hispanic community and many African-Americans who support the police.” Her words resonated with the room, highlighting the importance of community trust and collaboration with local law enforcement.
Christy Narsi, another Hometown Hero and part of Independent’s Women’s Network spoke passionately about the failures of DOJ Consent Decrees in other cities, warning the council against relinquishing local control.
Christy emphasized, “I urge you not to surrender local autonomy by allowing federal overreach to steal control of our local law enforcement and the city they serve.” Her argument underscored the belief that decisions about local policing should be made by those who know the community best.
The debate over the future of the PPD is a microcosm of a larger national conversation about the balance between federal oversight and local autonomy in law enforcement. Our America firmly believes that the best way to achieve safer streets and a brighter future is through a combination of police and criminal justice reforms tailored to the unique needs of each community. The reforms that the PPD has already implemented are a testament to the power of local action and the effectiveness of community-driven solutions.
As the City of Phoenix faces pressure from the DOJ to enter into a Consent Decree, the voices of local residents and activists like those from Our America will play a crucial role in determining the path forward.
By continuing to advocate for local control, Our America Hometown Heroes are not only standing up for the autonomy of the Phoenix Police Department but also for the principle that communities are best served when they have a direct say in how they are governed.
Paul Parisi is the Arizona Grassroots Director for Our America.
by Paul Parisi | Aug 19, 2024 | Opinion
By Paul Parisi |
A modern-day example of voter integrity is the picture of an Iraqi woman holding up her finger colored in purple indelible ink, indicating that she voted. In 2005, an Iraqi woman posed for an iconic picture after leaving a polling station in Southern Iraq in the country’s first free election in over a half-century. She did so in defiance of deadly suicide bombings and mortar strikes at polling stations.
The recorded history of democracy dates back to the 5th century in ancient Greece. The word democracy is derived from two Greek words – demos, which means people and kratos, which means rule. In the first elections in Athens, only the ruling class could vote.
Even though the United States of America is a democratic country, the path to “one person, one vote” has been a checkered one. In 1789, when the US Constitution was ratified, most states only allowed white landowners to vote.
The 15th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1870, gave Black men the right to vote. It wasn’t until 1920 when the 19th Amendment was passed that women in all states were allowed to vote. The passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 put teeth in prohibiting racial discrimination when voting.
Though we have come a long way since the concept of democracy was born, voter integrity is still on the forefront. The recent phenomena of widespread mail-in ballots have created a whole new potential of voter fraud. Ballot harvesting, which is legal in many states, puts the concept of the secret ballot into question. Is the person filling out the ballot actually the person registered to vote?
Congress has recently passed the Safeguard American Voters Eligibility Act (SAVE). This bill is waiting to be heard in the Senate. The act requires that all people registering to vote provide proof of citizenship in federal elections. Though it’s already against the law for non-citizens to vote in federal elections, the National Voter Eligibility Act of 1993 prohibits states from confirming citizenship status in federal elections.
On August 1, 2024, the 9th Circuit Court put a stay on a recent Arizona law that required showing proof of citizenship in all elections including federal. In 2020, 11,600 individuals voted in Arizona on federal only ballots without showing proof of citizenship. The 9th Circuit Court decision is now being appealed to the US Supreme Court.
With the recent influx of undocumented individuals entering the United States, the importance of citizens only voting is a front burner issue that the SAVE Act might resolve. Just showing ID when registering to vote and casting your ballot at the polls will bring back a level of confidence in our elections.
With stronger legislation addressing voter integrity, Americans may have even more trust in our elections—akin to the Iraqis proudly holding up their purple-stained fingers.
Paul Parisi is the Arizona Grassroots Director for Our America.
by Paul Parisi | Jul 27, 2024 | Opinion
By Paul Parisi |
On June 13, 2024, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) released a critical report following a nearly three-year investigation into the Phoenix Police Department (PPD), alleging misconduct including excessive force, discrimination, and violations of homeless people’s rights. This report has prompted the DOJ to push the City of Phoenix to sign a consent decree, which would subject the PPD to court-ordered monitoring.
The report has stirred considerable debate among Phoenix city officials and residents. The DOJ’s findings have cast a spotlight on the PPD’s practices, while the proposed consent decree has raised concerns about federal overreach and its potential impact on local law enforcement.
Phoenix City Council members have voiced their concerns about the report and the implications of entering into a consent decree. Councilwoman Ann O’Brien emphasized the DOJ’s poor track record and the high costs associated with such agreements. She pointed to Seattle, where violent crime increased by 37% during its 10-year DOJ monitoring period, and Albuquerque, which saw a 53% rise in violent crime since 2015 under federal oversight.
Closer to home, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has incurred nearly $300 million in taxpayer costs since 2015 due to federal monitoring. This undue cost to the taxpayer equates to “defunding the police.”
Consent decrees for police departments began in 1994 with the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act,” a legislative response to the nationally publicized police beating of Rodney King. While police brutality is unequivocally unacceptable, there is significant debate over whether federal oversight through consent decrees is the best solution. Critics argue that such measures often lead to increased bureaucracy and hinder effective policing, ultimately harming the communities they aim to protect.
Despite the DOJ’s allegations, the City of Phoenix has taken proactive steps to address issues within its police department. The PPD has implemented significant reforms, including revising use-of-force practices, purchasing body cameras, and adopting a robust accountability program. Additionally, PPD officers are the highest paid in Arizona, a strategy aimed at recruiting and retaining top talent.
The Phoenix mayor and city council, elected by local voters, have demonstrated their accountability to the community through these reforms. They have succeeded in reducing crime while training police officers in modern policing practices. This local control and responsiveness to community needs are seen by many as preferable to federal intervention.
Community support for the PPD is strong. Phoenix residents, who are intimately familiar with their community’s unique needs and challenges, overwhelmingly favor local control over federal oversight. Ronald Reagan’s famous quote, “The most terrifying words in the English language: I’m from the government and I’m here to help,” resonates with many who fear that federal intervention could do more harm than good.
Phoenix has gone out of its way to cooperate with the DOJ, making sweeping reforms on its own. The PPD’s efforts to improve transparency, accountability, and community relations demonstrate a commitment to policing excellence without the need for federal intervention.
The City of Phoenix must now decide whether to voluntarily submit to a consent decree that mandates court-ordered control of the PPD or face the possibility of being taken to federal court by the DOJ. There they will be forced to plead their case to a federal judge.
The debate over the DOJ’s proposed consent decree is not just about police reform; it is also about maintaining local autonomy and ensuring that the residents of Phoenix have a say in how their city is governed. As Phoenix grapples with this issue, the city’s leaders and residents are urging the mayor and council to reject federal overreach and continue striving for safer streets and brighter futures through local control and community-based policing.
As the city moves forward, it remains to be seen whether the DOJ consent decree will be adopted or if Phoenix will be allowed to chart its own course, confident in its ability to manage and reform its police department without outside interference.
Paul Parisi is the Arizona Grassroots Director for Our America.
Page 1 of 11