by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Jun 11, 2021 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
If you’ve tried to book a room at the Suites on Scottsdale (formerly known as Homewood Suites) since May 24, you’ve probably been left frustrated. All the rooms are currently listed as “Not Available” through the rest of the year.
A normal person would likely assume that this is because the hotel is going out of business. But that’s not the case. Instead, the hotel was secretly converted into a makeshift migrant shelter by the Biden administration almost overnight.
In this recent shady move, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) paid “Family Endeavors” $86.9 million in a no-bid contract through September 30 to house more than 1,200 migrants at a time in Arizona and Texas. (And in case you’re keeping track, the group also received a second no-bid contract from the Biden administration for $530 million in April.)
That comes out to $352 per bed per day of your hard-earned tax dollars.
While hotel rooms in Scottsdale can certainly be expensive, those rates tend to drop significantly in the summer months. It doesn’t take more than a few seconds to do a search that produces a long list of rooms (not just beds) available at hotels in Scottsdale for $75-$150 a night. That’s because people don’t usually flock to Scottsdale when the forecast says it will be 117 degrees on June 15.
But the outrageous no-bid contracts and extravagant bed rates aren’t the only problem.
>> READ MORE >>>
by Jeff Utsch | Jun 9, 2021 | Opinion
By Jeff Utsch |
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
In a handful of words, with only slight variations, elected leaders in the United States vow to, “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
What if the domestic enemy is staring back at you in the mirror.
Any elected officer seeking to promote a collectivist, socialist or communist ideology, should on principle, resign immediately. You cannot, at the same time, espouse these ideologies and keep the oath you have sworn to uphold.
I elaborate:
Domestic enemies of the Constitution include those who do not believe in the ideals protected by the Constitution or the Federal Republic which it creates.
Abraham Lincoln taught that the Constitution was created to protect the principles, ideals and values as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution, thus, should be viewed as the “strong box” protecting the precious truths written by Thomas Jefferson and unveiled to the world on July 4, 1776.
Included in these truths are the following:
That “all men are created equal.”
American patriots still believe this to be true but if one has a Marxist belief system, he does not. Marxists believe that there are oppressors and the oppressed, perpetrators and victims.
If one falls into the oppressor or perpetrator class, as determined by them, then he/she is not to be treated equally but as a cancer to be eviscerated. This person is to be demonized, ridiculed and accused of nefarious deeds regardless of individual ideas, thoughts, and history.
And, of course, if everyone is treated equally, it means we will not have equal outcomes. That is not fair to communists.
So, “equity” — equality of outcome — becomes the new mantra. In 2021, it is this clamor, unnerving and morally debased, that needs to be called out and extinguished.
We must grasp that we cannot have a nation that is free and treats everyone equal and, simultaneously, one that promotes “equity.”
Next, the phrase, “that they are endowed by their creator.”
Stop right there. Marxists believe there is no God and, therefore, He cannot endow anyone with anything. The only endowing, in fact, is that performed by earthly mandates from those in power. Therefore, securing that power is justified by any means.
I offer, “with certain unalienable rights.”
Marxists do not believe in unalienable rights to individuals. This belief messes up governments’ ability to do what they thinks is best for the collective.
If individuals have unalienable rights, this automatically neutralizes the power of a centralized authority.
I offer, “that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Each one of these flies in the face of Marxism. To them, your life is not your own, liberty is a hiss and byword as it can be used against the states’ interest, and one’s pursuit of happiness is not a concern. Your happiness may conflict with what government deems best for all.
Of course, control of private property is part of the, “liberty and pursuit of happiness,” claim in the Declaration as per Madison and Jefferson. But protection of private property is to be shunned by Marxists, as “equity” cannot be attained when people control what they produce or own.
I offer, “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”
“Heresy!”, is the cry of Marxists. Governments set up to protect individual rights as its primary function!? How do we get anything done with that? Surely, governments need to be set up to make life fair and equitable; to force people to do the right thing; and to comply with what we think is right. So, say communists.
Make no doubt, this is the big one.
Patriots still believe that protecting our liberty is government’s primary role while the enemies of liberty have other priorities. We have had many priorities subvert that of liberty of late. Let’s not forget what we allowed our governors to do under the guise of our safety this past year.
I offer, “deriving their just powers by the consent of the governed.”
Marxists believe that we cannot function and create a utopia that is “just and fair” to all with only limited powers delegated to government by the people.
Government must be the arbiters of its own power. The people know nothing of what is best for them. Limited powers delegated are too restrictive and will delay the work that needs to be done. Expediency and today’s exigencies are what is important and no parchment barrier, like the Constitution, should be allowed to get in the way of progress, they contend.
So, we see that Marxists of all shapes and sizes do not believe in the fundamental truths that all Americans used to believe in from birth. The American Creed, the second paragraph of the Declaration, was the vision we all embraced.
Today, we see this common belief is no longer embraced by all – but something to be scourged by the American Left.
And the same people that deride the ideals in the Declaration are attempting to destroy the document constructed to protect it.
The Constitution is a compact among the states that grants limited power to the federal government for a reason. These limitations of power inhibit the ability of authoritarians to do as they wish. Destroying these limitations is, in fact, a defection to Marxism.
Federalism, or the separation of powers between the national government, the states, and the people, is to be overcome by ignoring those inconvenient restrictions contained within the Constitution — and concentrating all political power in Washington, D.C.
Marxists also do not believe in the separation of powers between executive, legislative and judicial branches. All are to be used as tools to consolidate power and by any means necessary. Illegal executives-orders, legislating from the bench or creating laws through bureaucratic overreach are all legitimate tools, provided they further the cause.
The Bill of Rights? Nothing sacred here to Marxists.
Freedom of speech and the press should be curtailed for our own good. Only ”correct ideas,” approved by social media giants should be aired to public audiences. Freedom of religion is a privilege, not a right. Forget the 2nd Amendment. Due process, the taking of private property without compensation and Equal Protection Clause are all outdated and, in fact, impede what is needed today in order to make progress.
Arbitrary edicts and rule from on-high with few legislatures in-session or consulted about issues that deal with, “we, the people?”
Didn’t we fight a revolutionary war that dealt with lack of representation?
We have come so far.
Few of our elected officials openly endorse Marxism or Communism, but by looking at the policies they support, we know where their true allegiance lies, and it is not to the Constitution or the ideals it protects.
Jeff Utsch, of Tucson, AZ, is an instructor at the Leadership and Freedom center in Gettysburg PA and teaches on the Constitution around the nation. You can find published articles, podcasts, and commentary at www.jeffutsch.com. He can be reached at Jeff@jeffutsch.com
by Marilyn M. Singleton | Jun 9, 2021 | Opinion
By Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD |
These days more and more apparently intelligent people seem to upspeak. That’s the irritating “Valley Girl” inflection where every sentence sounds like a question. Don’t these people trust their own thoughts and words?
Perhaps upspeakers’ brains are fried after being fed a steady diet of DEI, ESG, and BIPOC. For the uninitiated, these initials stand for “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion”, a corporate stock/investment rating based on Environmental awareness, Social justice and (right-minded) Governance to enhance the lives of “Black, Indigenous, People of Color.” “Privilege” gets the full word. White people must “check their privilege at the door” and shut up under the current era of Stalinesque cancel culture.
Black American slaves used to have some version of Simon Legree as their master. Now the woke white liberals have assumed that role. Even views BIPOCs as helpless morons whom only the government can rescue.
Of course, little BIPOCs are the perfect unsuspecting targets. Despite parental objections, new school curricula include Marxist inspired critical race theory that teaches children to hate others based on skin color. Instead of learning the 3 Rs, kindergarteners are encouraged to explore their gender identity and question the family structure . The latest data show that only 35 percent of 4 th graders are proficient in reading and 41 percent are proficient in math. Instead of learning the necessary skills to race to the top of the ladder of success, they have the tools to win the victim triathlon. The prize: dependency on government resources.
COVID-19 added a new ingredient to the melting pot. Brown-skinned Americans fare more poorly with COVID than whites. Some reasons are sociological , such as crowded living conditions, working in service jobs that cannot be done from home, and inconsistent access to health care. Some reasons may be physiological. Studies have shown racial differences in the body’s ACE-2 receptors. These receptors help control inflammation, especially in cells lining the blood vessels . These are the sites where the “spike” protein of the SARS-Co-V-2 virus (that causes COVID-19) enter and infect healthy cells throughout the body. Notably, there may be more ACE-2 receptors in patients with hypertension, diabetes and coronary artery disease—conditions plaguing black Americans . Moreover, people with brown skin have lower levels of Vitamin D, a factor in the risk of contracting a SARS-Co-V-2 infection and the severity of COVID-19.
Knowing the higher risk, the DEI folks should have launched an education campaign informing BIPOCs about non-prescription supplements like quercetin, zinc, and vitamin D, as well as prophylaxis or early treatment with inexpensive medications ( hydroxychloroquine , ivermectin , and fluvoxamine , among others) that can significantly reduce symptoms and prevent hospitalizations and deaths.
Instead, the public health gurus waited for vaccines. The guise of “ vaccine equity ” drew attention away from legitimate concerns about the shots. Despite the increased susceptibility to COVID-19, black Americans remain skeptical of the shot. Folks still remembered the instances where the underserved were “helped” by the government. The 1932 Tuskegee syphilis study denied a group of black men treatment for 40 years. Without informed consent, an experimental measles vaccine was administered to babies starting in 1987. After too many African and Haitian children deaths to ignore, the program was halted.
Able to read, BIPOCs learned about the serious side effects that include sometimes fatal blood clots, facial paralysis, possible menstrual problems, heart inflammation , among others. They wondered why the less effective Johnson & Johnson vaccine was sent to underserved neighborhoods. They wondered why the government had to offer $116 million in prizes , trucks, and customized firearms to encourage people to get the shot. They wondered why the government was going door to door to find BIPOCs to whom to give shots.
In order to swoop in to the rescue, the government-pharmaceutical complex could not allow the 34 million Americans who have had documented COVID-19 or a SARS-CoV-2 infection to depend on their natural immunity . Like a virus escaping from a lab or jumping from a pangolin to infect humans, the government control expanded from BIPOCs to privileged white folks.
What are we to do about the tension between addressing real health disparities and recognizing that racial disparities are used as a cover for manipulating society? Together we rip off the mask of benevolence. As ethical physicians, we pledge to treat all individuals with dignity and respect. We will explain the risks and benefits of their options and let patients decide. As active citizens, we demand prophylaxis, treatments of our choice, and the freedom to choose to receive or decline the shot. We take advantage of the law. A number of courts have been on the patient’s side.
by Loretta Hunnicutt | Jun 7, 2021 | Education, Opinion
By Loretta Hunnicutt |
Recently, the Arizona Attorney General settled civil rights cases involving Uber Eats, Postmates, and DoorDash in a case he was corporations with the “best of intentions” doing the “wrong thing.” The “wrong thing,” in this case, was offering “price distinctions based on a person’s race.”
The corporations in question planned on waiving delivery fees for black-owned restaurants. The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) found that the plan squarely violated equal access laws and the corporations were charged with public accommodations discrimination based on race.
The AGO alleged that the corporations unlawfully discriminated against non-Black owned restaurants and their patrons, in violation of the Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA).
“Even with the best of intentions, corporations can do the wrong thing. Altering the price of goods or services based on race is illegal,” said the Attorney General in a press release. “My office opened these investigations and pursued these settlements to protect civil rights and ensure businesses offer their services and products based on equal and neutral criteria.”
It is with the same good intentions that companies are doing the wrong thing across the country by funding “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion,” and “anti-racist” programs in school districts.
There is little doubt that the average company participating in the promotion of programs based on the aforementioned buzz words believe that they are advancing civil rights and social harmony. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. The Critical Race-based programs are creating deep divides and distrust in communities just as the Critical theorists intended.
Given that the majority of corporations exist for the most part because of capitalism, it is hard to conceive that they would ever knowingly support programs based on Western-Marxist philosophy, but that is exactly what they are doing.
Some more cynical observers suspect that the mega-corps are funding the “antiracist movement” in order to divide the middle- and lower-classes and thus keep them conquered. While the cynics might find a rare case, for the majority of companies it is the trust they have in educators that is driving their funding decision-making.
As it stands, corporations with the best of intentions are doing the wrong thing and creating nightmares for parents and children. I have confidence that this is not the intended outcome.
Contrary to the implications made by “antiracists,” parents are not objecting to “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion,” and “anti-racist” programs in school districts because they are bigots. It is quite the opposite: they do not want their children growing up to be the segregationists – the bigots – the Critical Race Theory-based proponents want them to be.
Companies have mostly relied on national and local chambers that mostly relied local educational organizations to decide where and what educational programs they funded. In the past, that process delivered good outcomes. Now, with the over-representation of the National Education Association by a wide margin on local school boards and state organizations like the Arizona School Board Association, the product of corporate spending on our classrooms can only lead to a proliferation of anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist, anti-American pedagogy.
As a result, it is essential that the small businesses that are the backbone of middle-America and the large corporations that benefit the most from them re-evaluate the resources they rely on to determine to whom those charitable dollars flow.
RELATED ARTICLE: Loretta Hunnicutt, Glenn Beck explore indoctrination in TUSD schools
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Jun 7, 2021 | Economy, Opinion
By the Free Enterprise Club |
“15 days to slow the spread.” Do you remember that? It was all the rage in the media in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. You’d hear it on news broadcasts. You’d see it in commercials. And you’d read it as you scrolled through the various social media platforms.
But it didn’t take long before those calls to “slow the spread,” became calls to “cancel everything.” And too many government leaders across the country bought into it by instituting huge lockdowns and other draconian measures.
Certainly, COVID was an issue that warranted some action, but it never should have included crushing small businesses or trampling on the rights of the people.
And yet, here we are more than a year later. The states with the most severe COVID restrictions are experiencing much slower economic recovery than those that fully reopened.
Blue states are struggling
California still has not reopened, despite being the first state to lockdown back in March 2020. Finally, after months of inconsistencies, confusing decisions, and hypocrisy from leaders like Governor Newsom, the state appears to be poised to fully reopen by mid-June.
But the outlook isn’t bright. Even with such extreme lockdowns and other measures, California still experienced a deadly surge from COVID. And along with that, its economy is in turmoil with one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates at 8.3%.
Not surprisingly, there’s been a mass exodus from the state, causing it to lose a seat in the House of Representatives. And those that have remained are so fed up that they are trying to recall their governor.
But California is not alone. In a recent report, Michigan has been named as the state with the slowest recovery. Even Governor Whitmer couldn’t help but acknowledge that her radical measures, which at one point included prohibiting citizens from visiting family and friends, couldn’t stop COVID.
And then there’s New York, where Governor Cuomo’s COVID failures have been well documented. Just like California, the state also lost a seat in the House of Representatives due to a significant decline in its population. New York City alone lost approximately 900,000 jobs with a current unemployment rate of 11.4%.
But how do these blue states compare to our own?
READ MORE >>>
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Jun 5, 2021 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
In public discourse, it’s considered bad form to insult your opponent’s integrity. But it’s almost impossible to believe that climate alarmists believe their own apocalyptic predictions.
Greta Thunberg, Al Gore and other experts sternly warned that our planet will be an uninhabitable, unsalvageable oven unless within 15 years (now 10 or 12) we bend all human activity to the goal of eliminating carbon emissions. If true, this creates an obvious moral imperative.
So on his first day in office, President Biden terminated the extension of the Keystone pipeline, created to export shale oil from Alberta to the US. It was, uh, controversial.
Union leaders were upset that 60,000 good jobs were lost. The pipeline’s demise threatened America’s energy independence. There were safety and environmental concerns too. Even Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm admitted that pipelines are the best, lowest carbon means of transporting fuels.
But no matter. Keystone made feasible the transport and use of fossil fuels and had to be stopped, no matter the impact on the welfare of Americans.
Maybe not smart, but at least ideologically consistent. To the environmental Left calling the shots, it signified America’s willingness to sacrifice for a carbon-free future.
But then in May, Biden did an about face and gave the go ahead to a similar Russian project transporting natural gas to Germany and other European countries via an immense underseas pipeline. It’s a huge win for Russia, cementing the economic dependence of fuel-starved Europe and circumventing the necessity of paying transit fees to Ukraine.
But waiving the Trump-era sanctions on Nordstream was an expensive concession. Russia’s gain is America’s loss of an export market. Our value to our European allies is diminished. Moreover, all the arguments against supporting fossil fuel use that shut down Keystone apply equally to Nordstream.
The effects of carbon emissions on global temperature is obviously the same regardless of their origin. Russia and China have paid only thinly disguised lip service to participating in reduction efforts. For us to aid expansion of Russian fossil fuel production is nuts.
So what did good old Joe get for this precious gift to Putin? Nothing.
But even in a world where the unthinkable keeps morphing into reality, Biden would never have agreed to open the pipeline if he really believed our continued existence depended on radically transforming away from fossil fuels in the next few years.(“Biden“ is used here to denote whoever the deciders are behind the curtain in the current administration).
More suspect thinking surrounds the current fad for electric car subsidies. The subsidies are popular with wealthy beneficiaries, of course, the manufacturers and drivers.
The US spends about $10,000 per car on these “temporary“ handouts intended to promote the development of the electric car market. Nations around the world are charging ahead with plans to eliminate fossil-fuel powered cars within the foreseeable future.
But electric cars aren’t all that green. First, manufacturing the large batteries is an energy intensive process they can emit a quarter as much greenhouse gases as a gasoline car produces in a lifetime.
Second, the electricity to operate a clean vehicle must be generated somewhere. Solar and wind are not yet technically developed to the point of being adequate contributors and non-emitting nuclear has been shunned by self-styled environmentalists. For now, that leaves fossil fuels.
Electric cars in sum have little or no effect on net emissions. The International Energy Agency estimates that if all the players follow through and we get to 140 million electric cars by 2030 – a highly ambitious goal – the net reduction would be only 0.4% of global emissions.
The alarmists wouldn’t be wasting their time on cars if they really believed the end was near. “Biden“ just sees a chance to make a politically astute move that corresponds with environmental groupthink.
It’s pretty obvious that the enviros don’t believe their own BS (sorry, ladies). The Thunberg/Gore 15-years-and-out prophecy is one of 50 hair-raising expert predictions documented by the American Enterprise Institute, all meant to induce panic and soften us up to accept the attendant necessary sacrifices.
Relax. Not one of them has come true.
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.
