Every so often, the answers to problems of the day are best revealed through questions. Jeopardy gets it right.
So, today’s answer is, “These are the True Racists,” and the questions are as follows:
Are racists those who want to keep minorities ignorant, allowing no school choice and locking them into the public school system? Or, is it those who want to give every child the choice of where to receive an education?
Is it those who say and care nothing about the numbers of Black men killed by other Black men in inner cities? Or, is it those who understand all Black lives matter, not merely those killed by police?
Is it those who promote abortion clinics in the inner city? Or those who seek to protect the sanctity of life?
Is it those whose policies have helped destroy families of minorities and refuse to learn from experience? Or, is it those who grasp the failure of these policies and want to change them to preserve the family structure?
Is it those who teach victimhood and, “No, you can’t without government’s help?” Or, might it be those who acknowledge the bright potential and future of all and those who support and encourage all in realizing their potential?
Is it those who create dependency and no path out from poverty? Or, is it those who want what is best for each individual and strive to adopt and implement policies that would do just that?
Is it those who tell you that you were never a true American, entitled to the full benefits of citizenship, with no hope of attaining the American dream? Or, is it those who know you are an American with all the rights and privileges that entails, and the ability to pursue your own happiness?
Is it those who teach that any struggle you face is derived from racism and flaws in the system? Or, is it those who cheer for your success and who recognize that each individual has unique challenges to overcome?
Is it those who have such low expectations that they don’t think you can obtain an identification card? Or, it is those who see an equal and treat you as such?
Is it those who see color first, to the exclusion of attributes? Or is it those carrying-out Martin Luther King’s vision of judging by character alone?
Is it those who wish to re-segregate? Or, those who strive for integration?
Is it those who intentionally use race to divide because of their own nefarious ends? Or, is it those who want to heal and continue what progress we’ve achieved?
Is it those who don’t want you to know the real statistics of police shootings, as it would destroy a narrative? Or, it is those seek to tell the truth of local policing?
Is it those encouraging entitlement and rage as a way of life? Or, would it be those who strive to instill self-worth and dignity?
Is it those teaching false history to intentionally manipulate perspectives? Or, it is those teaching history, its shames included, who understand America’s progress in living-up to its creed of “all men are created equal?”
Is it those who teach Critical Race Theory whose teachings hold that all whites are identified as oppressors? Or, is it those who teach that all are to be judged as individuals and are mindful that many of all colors have fought for racial equality?
Is it those that teach “us-versus-them?” Or, those who teach of a common, “we?”
Is it those seeking to divide along racial lines? Or those aiming to unite as Americans sharing similar visions?
The Jeopardy paradigm takes the mask off and reveals the answers.
Those most often pointing the finger, accusing others as being racists, protest too much.
It is time that the truth be known.
Yes, it seems that systemic racism IS flourishing in America, but it is not coming from our traditional core ideals, founding documents or American patriots. It is coming from those who perpetuate bogus lessons of history and false, self-serving proscriptions.
All must look at facts and stop accusing those bereft-of-prejudice and, instead, turn the focus to the real racist policies and beliefs. “By their fruits ye shall know them”. For those who have eyes to see it is not difficult to watch and see which “seed” produces the good fruit, the universal love among all men.
Only when we identify and rip-out the root of this division (false narratives and racist policies that equate to systemic racism) will there be a chance of healing. As long as race baiters and perpetual “pot-stirrers” are allowed to maintain their undeserved microphones, truth will be suppressed, and any victory will be fleeting.
Jeff Utsch of Tucson, AZ, is an instructor at the Leadership and Freedom Center in Gettysburg PA and can be heard on iHeart Radio’s Podcast, Constitutional Conversations, with KFYI 550-AM host James T Harris, of The Conservative Circus. Jeff@jeffutsch.com
House Bill 2241 requires Arizona students to be taught about the Holocaust and other genocides twice between seventh and twelfth grades. Although the bill passed unanimously in February of this year, at issue is a proposed Senate amendment defining anti-Semitism in accordance with the definition adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).
The sponsor of HB 2241, State Rep. Alma Hernandez, is a self-declared progressive and staunch Zionist. The Mexican-American Jewish Democrat is a refreshing and important voice in Arizona’s pro-Israel community, especially at a time in American politics when the term “progressive” is often associated with with anti-Israel sentiment. In an interview with the Haym Salomon Center, Hernandez expressed her support for the IHRA definition, but not in the context of this bill.
“I have championed the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism in the past and hope to do so in the future with colleagues across the aisle in a separate bill,” said Hernandez, adding, “I worked with Holocaust survivors, families and organizations to create this bill. This is their bill, and I will keep my promise to them and pass their legislation.”
Hernandez is part of a chorus of bill supporters who believe the unanimous passing of the legislation sends an important message to students on the significance of Holocaust education.
Joining that choir is Sheryl Bronkesh, president of the Phoenix Holocaust Association. During our conversation she expressed how critical it is to pass this legislation now, with no amendments.
“We’ve been working on this legislation for three years,” explained Bronkesh. “This past year I lost 10 survivors. I don’t want to see another legislative session end without survivors and their families not witnessing Holocaust education being passed while they are with us.”
Disagreeing with Bronkesh is fellow Phoenix Holocaust Association member Marion Weinzweig. Weinzweig, a Holocaust survivor, believes “we need the IHRA definition in the bill. If we don’t define anti-Semitism – teach students about contemporary anti-Semitism – what stops this bill from being used against Jews and Israel?”
Weinzweig and other supporters of the IHRA amendment fear that without the definition, Holocaust education can be used to foment anti-Semitism.
Sounds absurd to some. But during a period in our history where disdain for Jews is growing, anti-Israel advocates and their anti-Semitic minions in government, culture, and academia intend to use the Holocaust to stir up Jew-hatred.
Holocaust inversion is an actual phenomenon. It’s the portrayal of Jews and Israel as modern-day Nazis. Anti-Semites claim Israel treats the Palestinians as the Nazis treated the Jews during the Holocaust.
This sad reality is one of the driving forces that led Arizona State Sen. Paul Boyer to author and sponsor the IHRA amendment. The Republican lawmaker believes the purpose of Holocaust education is not only to teach the history; it must also help eradicate anti-Semitism in the future.
Boyer notes that over 550 survivors, family members of survivors and concerned citizens emailed the Arizona legislature in support of the IHRA amendment.
“The IHRA definition must be part of any Holocaust education bill if the legislation is to have any teeth,” Boyer explained. “If educating students about the Holocaust is to be successful in preventing future injustices, we have to include safeguards to prevent Holocaust inversion.”
Boyer is not wrong in his concerns about contemporary anti-Semitism. In fact, it exists in the very legislative body in which he serves.
For example, Arizona State Rep. and Minority Whip Athena Salman took to the floor in April 2019 and claimed the Israel military has a history of abducting children.
An anti-Israel, anti-Semitic diatribe such as that of Democratic lawmaker Salman makes one wonder how this type of behavior is being tolerated in our society. Invectives spewed by Congresswomen Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), who receive very limited scrutiny for their rank anti-Semitism, only reaffirm the position of IHRA definition supporters.
All the interested parties, on both sides of the debate, understand the importance of Holocaust education but disagree on how best to implement it. What is not up for debate, however, is that anti-Semitism exists even among publicly elected officials, and that Holocaust inversion is now part of contemporary anti-Semitism. Thwarting the trend necessitates a curriculum that includes a clear definition of anti-Semitism, past and present.
Paul Miller is president and executive director of the news and public policy group Haym Salomon Center. Follow him on Twitter at @pauliespoint.
They’re at it again. You would think that public school districts would learn their lesson at some point. After all, many of them turned their backs on students and parents in the wake of COVID-19. And now, those school districts are paying the price.
But apparently, they’re too committed to their agenda.
Some school districts are ignoring the science and keeping their beloved mask mandates. Some would rather keep parents in the dark about classroom curriculum. While others are trying to adopt Marxist Critical Race Theory programs in their schools.
The latest culprit is Litchfield Elementary School District, where the school board recently published an “equity statement” along with a set of “equity goals.” The goals were presented at the school board meeting in March and crafted by, you guessed it, a “district diversity committee.”
If you’re unfamiliar with Critical Race Theory, it’s a movement that combines Marxist theories of class conflict within the lens of race. And it teaches that racism is present in every interaction. Races that have been “minoritized” are considered oppressed while those who are “racially privileged” are called “exploiters.” Proponents of the movement are good at disguising it. As Christopher Rufo from the Manhattan Institute points out, you’ll often find Critical Race Theory is present when you hear terms like “social justice,” “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “equity.”
A group of conservative students at Arizona State University was smeared in an online social media campaign, targeted with doctored images and false claims.
According to documents obtained exclusively through YAF’s Campus Bias Tip Line, a current representative in ASU’s student government, Daniel Lopez, reportedly helped create an Instagram page titled “Don’t Vote For These-USG!” intended to intimidate conservative students running for USG positions, and sway the results of the election.
How Phoenix Mayor “Queen Kate” Gallego mismanaged (and exploited) the COVID-19 pandemic.
As normal life returns and Americans look back at the past year with clear eyes, it’s almost difficult to believe the actions that some local officials took to undermine their constituents’ recovery efforts.
Bill de Blasio at the gym. Muriel Bowser at a Delaware campaign event. Eric Garcetti’s threat to shut off water to families who invite private guests into their own homes. We remember these names. Throughout the country, though, local mayors outside of the spotlight followed similar paths, privately dismissing the gravity of COVID-19 while publicly leveraging ‘pandemic porn’ in order to advance political goals—and nowhere was that mismanagement (and personal exploitation) more prevalent, or less covered, than in the U.S.’s fifth-largest city.
There is a reason Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, who presided over a coronavirus hotspot in 2020, glossed over the pandemic during her second inaugural speech last Monday.
Gallego—née Widland, prior to her marriage to her now ex-husband, Congressman Ruben Gallego—always had her eyes on this prize. After working for the state party in her 20s, the Democrat’s career followed the trajectory of Peter’s Principle, by which people inadvertently are promoted to their level of incompetence. Gallego’s allies ushered her into various political positions for which she was little-qualified until finding a sweet spot: a safe-blue district on the Phoenix City Council, set to the backdrop of a low-turnout, odd-numbered-year election.
The Arizona state coffers are running over with cash. The state is set to receive $12B in federal recovery funds, more than the entire annual state budget. On top of that, forecasting by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee projects by 2024 the state will have a $6.4B cash balance with $1.5B in ongoing revenues. Republicans in the Legislature and Governor Ducey are looking to return the record high, multi-billion-dollar state surplus to taxpayers by passing major tax cuts.
On the front lines to defeat these efforts—the cities—that are claiming major income tax reductions will significantly impact their bottom line. But it isn’t just the state sitting comfortably on a mountain of cash, the cities are too.
In opposing the proposed tax cuts, cities are arguing that the package will result in a $225 million decrease in their shared revenue from income tax collections. Despite this estimate being seriously flawed, their projections are in reality insignificant.
Based on research from the Arizona Tax Research Association, we’ll look at 4 cities—urban, rural, small, and large—comparing their estimated “cut” from the tax package to their cash balances and scored against additional revenues generated from the 2019 Wayfair legislation, which permanently expanded the cities’ tax base.
Chandler
The city of Chandler has a budget of just under $317 million in general fund expenditures for FY2021, leaving nearly $135 million in the general fund.
So far in FY2021, the city has collected close to $3.6 million in new, local TPT revenue and $1.2 million in state shared TPT collections by remote sellers. Taking the average from the 8 months of collections so far in FY2021, this would result in just over $7 million annually.
The estimate of Chandler’s decrease in shared revenue? Just over $10 million.
With a cash balance of $135 million, $7 million in new revenue from Wayfair, Prop 207 revenue, and nearly $36 million in Covid cash from the latest package, residents of Chandler need not worry about their city providing a high level of service.
Their estimated “cut” represents a 0.67% decrease in Chandler’s general fund when scored against new ongoing tax revenues.
Flagstaff
The city of Flagstaff budgeted $81.7 million in general fund expenditures for FY2021, leaving the city with a cash balance of over $33 million.
From Wayfair, Flagstaff has already collected $1.3 million from remote sellers and their estimated state share is $340,000. Averaged out this is just under $2.5 million in new annual revenue. Flagstaff has also received $15.2 million in new Covid cash.
The estimated “cut” from income tax reductions? $2.9 million. This represents a mere 0.36% decrease in the general fund when scored against new ongoing tax revenues…
