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.
The whole “net-zero by 2050” narrative that cranked up in earnest in early 2021 has now become a public relations problem for the climate-alarm movement, according to a senior official at the United Nations.
Chris Stark, the outgoing chief executive of the UN’s Climate Change Committee (CCC), said as reported by the Guardian: “Net zero has definitely become a slogan that I feel occasionally is now unhelpful, because it’s so associated with the campaigns against it. That wasn’t something I expected.”
As seems to always be the case among the globalist sponsors of this government-subsidized rush to saddle the world with unreliable power grids and short-range electric cars, the conversation among the leaders of the movement immediately moves not to perhaps reconsidering the approach to address public concerns, but to rejiggering the narrative. Stark recommends shifting the label and the narrative to more of a focus on investment and how renewables and EVs somehow improve energy security.
“We are talking about cleaning up the economy and making it more productive – you can call that anything you like,” he said.
That would be a neat trick, inventing a narrative about benefits that don’t really exist. But it wouldn’t be the first time it’s been tried.
At last November’s COP 28 conference, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres floated the term “climate collapse” as a new name for what the climate alarmists have successively called “global warming,” “climate change,” “climate crisis,” and “climate emergency.” Each successive label has been replaced as its cache’ with the public has faded; and apparently the whole “climate emergency” has lost its punch, so another fright narrative must be concocted.
The trouble there, of course, is that the climate is not collapsing. But then again, it isn’t in any sort of an emergency, either, or a crisis.
The climate is always changing, though, so at least the long-abandoned “climate change” label had the ring of truth to it. Maybe let’s go back to that and try to deal with something that is at least a real thing? But, no, that would cut down on the alarm and make it harder for political leaders to enact bad “solutions” and subsidize them with debt combined with skyrocketing utility bills for average citizens.
So, as Stark says, call it anything you want, just so long as it is alarming. Stark’s boss at the UN, Guterres, used the term “global boiling” to describe the current climate situation. So, maybe we change “net-zero by 2050” to “no bubbles by 2050.” That would at least have the advantage of some semblance of consistent thought.
A colleague suggested that we simply change the problematic label to “Stone Age,” since that is where we are heading if the alarmists continue to get their way. She has a point.
The most amazing thing about Stark’s concerns is that anyone is really surprised that “net-zero by 2050” has become a problematic term. How else would officials at the UN and other governments expect the public to react to what has become the umbrella label for a set of authoritarian government actions that have destabilized power grids, caused the cost of living to rise rapidly, reduced consumer choice, and begun to rob citizens in nominally “free” countries of their individual rights?
The central problem today with this climate change narrative is that it has gone on for so long that is has become a bit of a joke with an increasingly aware and skeptical public. And the reason they’re skeptical is not due to any disbelief in science, as the alarmists invariably claim, but because they have seen nothing but bad outcomes and personal deprivations from the alleged solutions being subsidized into existence.
Stark assures us that, “the lifestyle change that goes with this is not enormous at all,” but painful results to date tell another story.
If Stark were truly thoughtful and serious about wanting to deal with the increasing unpopularity of the “net-zero by 2050” construct, he would suggest that everyone take a step back and re-evaluate the nature and effectiveness of the solutions being pushed.
By merely advocating for the concoction of yet another shift in the narrative, a troublesome lack of sincerity is laid bare.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Have you been approached by someone at a store or restaurant, asking you to sign a petition related to reproductive rights or women’s healthcare, called the Arizona Abortion Access Act? If yes, it is important to understand what the initiative means.
According to the language of the initiative, every individual has the fundamental right to an abortion. The state cannot pass any law, regulation, policy, or practice that denies, restricts, or interferes with an abortion after fetal viability that a healthcare professional deems necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person.
Let’s break down what this means. ‘After fetal viability’ means that anyone can have an abortion up to birth. The term ‘healthcare professional’ refers to anyone in the healthcare field, including nurses, PAs, and RNs. This means that all healthcare professionals will be allowed to perform abortions, even if they do not have hospital privileges.
Furthermore, the language refers to ‘pregnant individuals,’ which doesn’t specifically mention adult women. This definition is vague and supersedes the current law that requires parental consent for a minor to have an abortion. As a result, any person can bring in a minor for an abortion, without the involvement or discussion with a parent.
It is important to note that this initiative is a ballot initiative, not a legislative bill that amends the Arizona Revised Statutes. If it passes, it will enshrine this into our state constitution, and subsequent legal changes and challenges will be out of the hands of our elected officials.
Therefore, Arizona voters must read and understand the language of this initiative before signing it. If you are not clear on the language, decline to sign.
The Honorable Jill Norgaard served in the Arizona State House from 2014-2018. She is the former First Vice Chairman of the AZGOP and Fair Maps of Arizona Redistricting Co-Chair.
Imagine a world where your child becomes the child of the state, effectively no longer under your care or influence. Their heart, soul, mind, and body are captured by the state’s dictates, philosophy, and immorality.
Sadly, if your child attends a K-12 public school, this nightmare is becoming a reality and worsening daily. Through entities like the US Department of Education, the CDC, and influential non-governmental organizations, your role as your child’s primary influence and caretaker is being stripped away.
Like the proverbial frog in the pot, hardly noticing as the heat rises until it’s too late, our children are being indoctrinated to align with the state’s norms, leaving parents behind as mere spectators in their upbringing.
One avenue for this process is via school counselors. School counselors, formerly called “guidance counselors,” are no longer solely focused on college and career guidance; they’re now delving into academic and career concerns and social, emotional, and behavioral issues while potentially crossing legal boundaries when discussing sensitive topics without parental knowledge or involvement.
The delineation between certified and licensed professionals is critical. Certification by the Department of Education in Arizona, for example, does not equate to a license to practice behavioral health; it merely designates an employee classification. Unlicensed practitioners need to have the same standards of practice and ethics as their licensed counterparts, raising serious concerns about the well-being of children.
Unlicensed individuals engaging in behavioral health practices within schools in Arizona are not held to the same standards as licensed professionals, raising severe ethical and legal concerns. The unauthorized practice of behavioral health is unethical and a felony offense.
Parents must be vigilant. Arizona law enacted in 2022 aimed to bolster parental rights, requiring teachers and school counselors to disclose any information divulged by students, particularly regarding their physical, emotional, or mental health. Parents are entitled to access all educational records and counselor notes, with legal recourse available if information is withheld.
Despite these safeguards, oversight is lax, leaving parents in the dark about school counselors’ activities and the protection of their rights. Parents must demand transparency and accountability from school administrators regarding counseling practices and records. For example, every parent should demand to review their child’s counselor and teacher notes, including preferred names and gender identities.
The influence of external organizations, such as the American School Counselor Association, raises questions about the ideological underpinnings of counseling practices in Arizona schools. Are counselors truly prioritizing the well-being of our children, or are they advancing agendas that undermine parental authority?
The lack of oversight also raises questions about how school counselors are monitored to ensure compliance with these laws and ethical standards. It’s imperative to inquire about the credentials of school counselors and therapists and ensure they hold proper licensure from the Arizona Board of Behavioral Health Examiners.
A school counselor in Arizona is facing allegations of maintaining a covert spreadsheet documenting transgender students’ preferred names and pronouns. Mesa Unified School District (MUSD) is currently embroiled in a lawsuit brought forth by America First Legal (AFL) over accusations of aiding a student’s gender transition without parental consent. According to the lawsuit the student’s mother filed, school district officials permitted her daughter to use a name and pronouns inconsistent with her birth certificate.
The mother asserts that her daughter was referred to using these names and pronouns for six months before she accidentally discovered it. Upon confrontation, the school principal purportedly confirmed the practice. An amended complaint now highlights the involvement of an additional MUSD employee. The complaint reveals that, based on a public records request, a counselor at Kino Junior High School was maintaining a clandestine spreadsheet to track which transgender students’ parents were informed about their preferred names and pronouns.
We cannot ignore this encroachment on parental rights and the well-being of our children. It’s time to take action to safeguard our children’s futures and protect our rights as parents. If you suspect your child has received unauthorized behavioral health services, report it to the Arizona Board of Behavioral Health Examiners.
Together, we can ensure that our children receive the education and support they deserve, guided by parental wisdom and consent, not state interference. Join us in advocating for the rights of parents and the well-being of our children in Arizona and every state. Parents, check out your state’s laws and administrative rules that govern school counselors and parental rights.
Tamra Farah has twenty years of experience in public policy and politics, focusing on protecting individual liberty and promoting limited government. She’s served at the director level at Americans for Prosperity-Colorado, FreedomWorks, and is currently the Director of SMART Families Network with Arizona Women of Action.
Governor Katie Hobbs has a rare opportunity to do something with the overwhelming support of her citizens, and that would make her a groundbreaker. She could become the first female governor to sign the Women’s Bill of Rights.
This shouldn’t take courage. This legislation, which was just passed by the Arizona state house, defines words like “woman” and “female” so when it comes to laws that use these words, we can all speak a common language. The bill also declares the state’s important interest in preserving female-only spaces and opportunities when privacy, safety, or fairness are implicated. Importantly, this law doesn’t prevent policymakers or local leaders from deciding to allow trans-identifying individuals from being included in any arena, but it gives us a language so that there is truth in advertising, and we have the ability to reserve some spaces and opportunities just for women.
We both know personally why this is so important.
I, Paula Scanlan, was a teammate of Lia Thomas at the University of Pennsylvania. Governor Hobbs, you’ve undoubtedly heard about how Lia Thomas – formerly Will Thomas when he competed on the men’s team – took competition spots, won titles, and smashed female records from female swimmers like me. But perhaps you haven’t heard about what it was like to have to share a locker room with him. As a sexual assault survivor, I was forced to change next time him, and have him undress just a few feet away from me, often several times a day. When I tried to tell administrators that I was uncomfortable sharing such private spaces with fully intact men, they told me I should get counseling, that I shouldn’t complain, and that they didn’t care about how this felt to me or the other women on my team.
I, Christy Narsi, serve as a chapter leader for Independent Women’s Network in Phoenix, and I hear daily from moms who are concerned about the message that we are sending our daughters today. We hear of mothers who are concerned about their daughters’ safety when they are forced to face bigger, stronger male-bodied athletes on the athletic fields. My colleague, Payton McNabb, had to face a male volleyball player on the court when she was a junior in high school. He spiked the ball in her face so hard that she had a serious concussion and brain injury. More than two years later, she still has partial paralysis. Why are women and girls’ safety concerns being brushed aside? Why is it that women and girls are being told that they need to step aside, that their dreams and aspirations don’t matter and have to be sacrificed for male-bodied athletes who want to join the women’s teams?
Governor Hobbs, as I’m sure you know, this is about more than just sport. Women’s rights—and the very concept of womanhood—are under assault as never before in history. Inmates in women’s prisons are being put at risk when they allow male prisoners—including violent sex offenders—into women’s prisons around the country. Men are entering female sororities, domestic violence shelters, and educational training programs that were created specifically to encourage women’s engagement.
Overwhelmingly Americans recognize that it isn’t fair to force women to compete against biological men. To back up this common sense is hard scientific data, like that outlined in the Competition Report, which shows that a human being who goes through male puberty, when testosterone levels rise by about 20 times, enjoys an irreversible advantage in strength and athletic power. Taking testosterone suppressors later in life doesn’t change that reality. Data shows that men have physical advantages—not just in terms of strength and speed but in lung capacity and how their hearts process blood—that are hard-wired in their bodies. This is why there are women’s leagues and competitions in the first place, and why it is simply dangerous and inhumane to have female inmates forced to share their spaces with men.
We are so grateful that Arizona’s state legislature decided to do something about it by passing this truth-in-advertising legislation. We hope that you will sign this bill into law and stand up for women’s rights in Arizona—and be a model for others across the nation.
Paula Scanlan is an ambassador with Independent Women’s Voice and a former swimmer at the University of Pennsylvania. Christy Narsi is the co-leader of the Independent Women’s Network Arizona Chapter, and is based in Surprise, AZ.
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.
