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.
by Catherine Barrett | Jun 3, 2021 | Opinion
By Catherine Barrett |
Following the dissatisfaction with the education system last year, the Superintendent of Public Instruction race this year is bound to witness a huge turnout of parents and taxpayers. The recent school closings have been a source of frustration for many parents since they have coughed up a significant amount of money to keep their children in school.
The education system has not been kind to the parents due to the coronavirus outbreak, which forced all schools closed in order to avoid putting students at risk of contracting the virus. However, the education sector has not been resilient in its work and should have invented preventive measures to ensure that students returned to learning after a short period. The closing of schools indefinitely caused the taxpayer’s money to be wasted as money was already dispersed to the Department of Education to cater to education needs.
The general public is disappointed by the fact that around 7.1 billion dollars were spent on education, yet schools remained closed for a more extended period than deemed necessary by some.
Most working-class parents have been frustrated by the closures since their children needed extra care than they would have if schools were opened. Some financially unstable families also depend on schools for childcare and food for their children. The parents were forced to spend more to cater to their children’s welfare when they had already paid for school fees and taxes to keep them in school. This was a extra burden as some parents lost their jobs during the pandemic, and some had to close their business permanently. With more than 124,000 schools closed, many children were affected, and some were forced to drop out of schools after they reopened due to challenging financial situations their families faced.
Catherine Barrett, an Arizona Master Teacher, has been called “the bravest teacher advocate in the state” by educators and lawmakers. She holds Masters degree in Education and had been teaching for 19 years.
by Victor Riches | Jun 3, 2021 | Opinion
By Victor Riches |
By dramatically decreasing the state’s income tax and simplifying its tax code, the governor can help ensure Arizona’s future ideological and economic success.
Now in the twilight of his gubernatorial career, Arizona governor Doug Ducey has the unique opportunity to make history on two fronts. First, if he simply remains in office for the next 18 months, he will become the Grand Canyon State’s first governor since Jack Williams — whose term ended in 1974 — to both enter and leave office during regular election cycles.
This peculiarity began with Raúl Héctor Castro, who succeeded Williams as governor. Castro happily resigned his post a few years later once President Carter had appointed him ambassador to Argentina. Since Arizona does not have a lieutenant governor, then–secretary of state Wesley Bolin ascended to the governorship by virtue of being the state’s next highest-ranking elected official — only to pass away six months later from a heart attack.
Arizona’s constitution stipulates that in such circumstances the third-highest-ranking official is next in line, meaning that the attorney general, Bruce Babbitt, also achieved the governorship without having to run for the office. And on it went. Since then, Arizona has witnessed a gubernatorial impeachment, two resignations, and three more secretaries of state extemporaneously gaining the governorship — making the office of secretary of state much more significant than its otherwise mundane responsibilities would suggest.
Governor Ducey is term-limited at the end of 2022 and so is primed to become Arizona’s first governor in nearly half a century to be both elected to the office and then to actually serve out his full term(s). While this accomplishment is an interesting piece of trivia for political-history buffs, it’s not much of a résumé builder for a politician who may have greater ambitions come 2024.
>> READ MORE >>>
by Catherine Barrett | Jun 1, 2021 | Opinion
By Catherine Barrett |
Low tax rates are essential for sustained growth and overall social wellbeing. Surveys show increased public support at 81% for reduced tax rates in Arizona. In support of teachers, activists such as those involved in the #REDforED movement, have emphasized the need for better measures that boost and enhance the overall reward scheme for teachers.
Reduced personal income tax will have a significant impact on the Arizona business community. A reduction of 2.5% in personal income tax evens the playground in the Arizona business environment. It will keep more money in small businesses, allowing them the much-needed resources for the growth and job creation. Without a doubt, Arizona’s business environment experience tax burden limits its attractiveness to external business and workforce. In addition, current tax policies have resulted in increased immigration outside the state. Employees are seeking a better working environment that has policies which enable them to keep a higher percentage of their earnings.
Furthermore, increased pocket income after-tax increases the family purchase power and reduces reliance on state interventions. The recommendations for tax reduction are also based on the state fiscal budget operated on-budget surplus. Thus, the recent proposal to increase the income tax is unwarranted harm to the local business community. Instead of increasing the tax burden, the state should adopt spending reforms. In the era of Covid-19, this proposal stands to impact natural and long-term effects on the Arizona people.
As a teacher activist, I support income tax relief so that employees, families, and businesses in Arizona survive and thrive during these challenging times. The Covid pandemic has negatively impacted business and families in Arizona. Income tax relief is essential to help the business and families under distress.
Catherine Barrett is an Arizona Governor’s Master Teacher and currently Chair of citizens initiative petition, A Classroom Code of Ethics For Public Schools K-12. You can find her on Twitter @ReadersLeadPD, and on Facebook at Yes4Ethics
Catherine Barrett is an Arizona Governor’s Master Teacher and currently Chair of citizens initiative petition, A Classroom Code of Ethics For Public Schools K-12. You can find her on Twitter @ReadersLeadPD, and on Facebook at Yes4Ethics