Last Tuesday night, the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board held what could only be described as a marathon meeting, lasting six and a half hours, including the executive session. The agenda was packed with items, but one issue drew the most attention: the proposed adoption of a new Social Science curriculum.
Eighteen individuals participated in the public comment portion of the meeting. All but one focused on the curriculum. A significant majority urged the Board not to adopt it, citing deep concerns. Opponents argued that the curriculum was saturated with DEI narratives, anti-law enforcement bias, gender ideology, climate activism, misleading COVID-19 claims, and advocacy for student activism over academic learning. Their primary concern: the curriculum fosters political indoctrination, not education.
Despite their differences, both supporters and critics of the curriculum appeared to agree on two points: students need to be taught the truth about current events, and they must learn to think critically. The debate centers on what constitutes the truth and how critical thinking should be developed.
Those supporting the curriculum’s adoption argued that it presents an honest, if uncomfortable, portrayal of America, especially regarding race and law enforcement. The curriculum cites examples like the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. It emphasizes that Brown, an unarmed Black teenager, was shot six times and killed by a white police officer, and points to the incident as emblematic of systemic racism.
The curriculum also discusses the rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and its evolution from protesting police brutality to addressing broader systemic issues like housing, healthcare, and employment disparities for Black Americans.
Additional content includes explanations about gender identity, stating individuals can identify as male, female, both, or neither. The curriculum also addresses the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that the FDA approved two highly effective vaccines and suggesting that lockdowns saved lives. It frames the environmental benefits of lockdowns as evidence of climate change and the need for continued action.
One speaker supporting the curriculum even admitted that for those questioning these narratives, “I don’t know what to say.”
Critics, however, challenged these representations as incomplete or misleading. Regarding the Michael Brown case, there is no mention that the Department of Justice’s investigation found Brown was attacking the officer and trying to take his weapon—his DNA was found on the gun—and that the claim he had his hands up saying “don’t shoot” was debunked in court. By omitting these critical facts, the curriculum pushes a one-sided narrative that paints law enforcement as inherently racist.
If the goal were truly critical thinking, the curriculum would also include studies like that of a Harvard professor, who, despite his preconceived belief that there is racial bias in policing, found no racial bias in police shootings after analyzing hundreds of cases. An honest and open discussion would allow students to examine why Black Americans commit crimes at a rate disproportionate to their population, not just claim they are victims of systemic racism. Perhaps the high rate of crimes being committed by young Blacks might explain their high rate of involvement with the police. But with this curriculum, it is doubtful the students will ever have such a discussion.
Law enforcement professionals also voiced concerns. The President of the Maricopa County Colleges Police Officers Association, a former Scottsdale police officer, and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office both criticized the curriculum’s anti-police tone. They warned that such content erodes trust between youth and law enforcement—trust, they say, is essential for community safety.
Rather than comparing the BLM movement to the civil rights movement and implying BLM has done great things for Blacks in America, why not tell the truth that the leaders of BLM stole money and bought houses for themselves? Or that several of the local chapters said nothing has been done by BLM to help Blacks in their communities.
Critics also took issue with how the curriculum handles topics like climate change and COVID-19. The omission of data showing that Antarctica has gained ice in recent years, information that contradicts climate change alarmism, is concerning. While skeptics of the climate narratives are called “science deniers,” the curriculum promotes the idea that there are more than two genders and that gender is fluid is a fact, when it’s really a denial of biological science.
On COVID-19, the curriculum claims the vaccines were effective at preventing infection but fails to acknowledge how the scientific narrative evolved. Initial claims about vaccine efficacy were later revised, with experts clarifying that while vaccines may not prevent infection, they can reduce the severity of symptoms. The curriculum also omits discussion of the high survival rate of COVID-19, 99%, particularly in children, and the long-term educational harm caused by prolonged school closures. There is no mention of the fact that the government actively blocked any negative discussion about the vaccine, including reporting on the severe negative side effects many people experienced.
One especially controversial element of the curriculum encourages students to take political action, such as organizing protests or social media campaigns, in support of transgender rights, or creating NGOs, leading critics to argue that it turns students into political activists.
Questions were also raised about how the curriculum was reviewed and recommended. Supporters of the adoption process claimed the committee’s work was “thorough and inclusive,” but the review committee was composed mostly of teachers, with only one community member, who happened to be the spouse of a former Board member, and no parents on the committee. One supporter of the curriculum told the Board members it was their responsibility to approve the committee’s recommendation, apparently without considering the curriculum themselves and just rubber-stamping the committee’s work. I don’t think so.
There are financial implications, too. Because the curriculum includes DEI and gender identity material, the SUSD risks losing funding—not just from government sources but also due to declining enrollment—as some families opt out of SUSD altogether. This ongoing trend of declining enrollment tracks with Dr. Menzel’s leadership of SUSD. Not only are students leaving, but critical, experienced staff and teachers are leaving. At this time, only about 50% of the eligible students attend SUSD—a dismal number, but reflective of just how well SUSD is perceived in the community.
On May 13th, board members Pittinsky, Sharkey and Lewis voted to defy Superintendent Menzel's "NO DEI" pledge and committed YOUR tax dollars for the purchase of DEI-filled curriculum.
— Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity (@ScottsdaleUnite) May 16, 2025
Keep in mind that indoctrination aims to instill a specific set of beliefs or ideas without allowing for critical thinking or questioning, whereas education encourages exploration, curiosity, and independent thought, fostering a deeper understanding through evidence and critical analysis.
After doing your research, ask yourself: Is this curriculum indoctrination or education? Which do you want for your child?
The current Board makeup makes any substantial changes in SUSD unlikely. Dr. Menzel’s apparent security in his position of “leadership” means we can expect him to continue his destruction of SUSD. I expect to see more 3–2 votes going forward and remain skeptical about the Board’s willingness or ability to restore trust and balance in SUSD and the classroom.
As this school year comes to an end, talk to your kids about what has gone on in their classrooms. What have they learned? Go to the SUSD website and look at the materials they will be using next year. If the information you are seeking is not available, use the Let’s Talk feature to question the staff and Dr. Menzel. If you find something objectionable, exercise your rights under Arizona law and opt your kid out of lessons.
Go to the Arizona Department of Education website and check the academic performance of your child’s school, or the new one they will be attending next year. Don’t fall for the SUSD hype of having so many A+ schools; rather, compare that rating to the academic performance of your schools. Does it meet your definition of A+? You just might be surprised at what you find.
Not every parent can take their child out of SUSD. Many will return next year, but despite the challenges, we must continue to strive for change in SUSD. Get involved. Go to Board meetings. Email the Board with your thoughts and concerns. Talk to the teachers. I know everyone is busy, but you can’t sit idly by and expect others to do the work by themselves. The number of people involved matters.
It’s your kid’s future we are talking about.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
Since becoming Governor of Arizona in 2023, Katie Hobbs’ name has been synonymous with corruption. Now, one of her latest vetoes shows the lengths she is willing to go to protect her own schemes.
Buried on the afternoon of Friday, May 2, Hobbs vetoed SB 1612, along with 21 other bills. Sponsored by Arizona State Senator TJ Shope, SB 1612 would have required anyone applying for grants to various state agencies to disclose gifts, donations, or other support provided to the sitting governor. That sort of transparency should be something that every Arizonan can get behind—Republicans, Democrats, Independents, you name it—unless, of course, your agenda doesn’t involve the best interests of Arizona citizens, right Katie Hobbs?
This whole story starts at the very beginning of Hobbs’ tenure as governor. If you’ll recall, at the time, Hobbs set up a shady slush fund to provide donors with a conduit to buy political favor from her administration. While setting up and managing the fund, Hobbs illegally used public resources—like the state’s website—to solicit money for her inauguration. And she also tried to stop the disclosure of the names of those who donated to her inaugural fund.
But after immense political pressure and public records requests filed by groups like the Arizona Freedom Foundation (who operates AZ Free News), Hobbs finally released the names of the donors. One of the names of the groups on the list was Sunshine Residential Homes Inc., a for-profit company that contracts with the State of Arizona to provide some child welfare services. At the time, Sunshine Residential Homes made a donation of $100,000. But in June 2024, an eye-opening report revealed a deeper level of corruption—an alleged pay-to-play scheme between Hobbs and the group home…
There has likely never been a more tendentious transfer of power in presidential history than the Biden-Harris team’s final act. They salted the ground by allocating billions of unspent COVID funds to George Soros and other radical left-wing groups.
Out of spite, they sold the border wall at giveaway prices. They tied down policy preventing offshore oil drilling, granted Social Security benefits to previously ineligible government employees, defied the Supreme Court to forgive student loans, and were uncooperative in relinquishing the VP residence.
Yet by far the most consequential crisis they unleashed is the massive number of illegal aliens now embedded within our borders. Many Americans were astonished to see our leadership not only ignore American immigration law but actively work for its violation.
Now we know for certain their claims that they needed more funding and legislation were made-up excuses. Their successors have reduced daily crossings to near-zero without the benefit of either.
Their attempted deceptions fooled some but not all. As public outcry grew, they doggedly persisted, willing to take the heat in order to transform America’s future electorate.
Worse, they succeeded. No reliable statistics are available for the getaways, unlawful crossings or total new “guests,” but most estimates are in the range of 20 million illegally within our borders.
Many sanctimonious Americans claim these lawbreakers should be allowed to stay for humanitarian reasons since they’re just “seeking a better life” or “fleeing persecution” in the case of the mostly bogus asylum seekers. But when a busload of “victims” was delivered to the left-wing enclave of Martha’s Vineyard, they were speedily transported elsewhere within a day.
That’s understandable, hypocrisy aside. These are not your grandfather’s immigrants, who wanted to be contributing Americans and often endured generations of hardship to assimilate, learn the language, and become self-supporting.
Today’s illegal immigrants are rewarded for wading the Rio Grande by becoming entitled wards of the state. They are fed, sheltered, and transported around the country. They are housed, sometimes in luxury hotels, and introduced by helpful NGOs to benefits like health care, education, and permanent food programs.
No serious consideration was given to the prospect that immigrants or their proxies would bear financial responsibility for all these goods and services. Thus, jurisdictions like New York City are feeling the pinch of what amounts to a sudden, dramatic expansion in their welfare roles, forcing out existing programs.
Trump made the resolution of this threat a major feature of his election campaign by vowing to close our borders and deport millions of illegal immigrants. To his credit, he has made a sincere effort, reducing breaches of the border from 130,000 monthly last April to a mere trickle today.
But reversing the inflow has proved more problematic. As of recently, relying almost solely on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to remove illegals has resulted in a total of 65,000 deportations. Those with criminal records have commendably been prioritized, but at the rate so far achieved, we would deport only 1 million, or about 5%, of those who are eligible, in four years.
Trump often prefers confrontation to resolve conflicts, but there’s a better way, using incentives and voluntary self-removal. Immigrants are attracted to America primarily by work and welfare. If those magnets could be eliminated, immigrants would eventually self-deport.
The welfare piece is relatively simple logistically. There is no coherent reason to grant benefits to those who intentionally defy our laws and take advantage of our generosity.
Government welfare benefits to illegals should be phased out immediately. Moreover, their home countries would benefit from having their working age citizens return.
Jobs are more complicated. E-Verify is the federal system for assuring that illegal immigrants don’t take American jobs, but it has not worked well, partly due to lack of cooperation from employers who frankly prefer foreign nationals who are compliant and work for less.
To prevent a future glut of unskilled, unneeded workers, President Trump must work with Congress to make E-Verify the enforceable law of the land. Like the border itself, it is simply a matter of having the will to make it happen. Lettuce may cost a bit more, but the vegetables will still get picked.
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.
Before Arizona voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2024 to legalize abortion up until birth, the state’s abortion laws still had some guardrails in place—things like parental consent, waiting periods, and informed consent. But even with those protections, the 2023 Abortion Report shows how far the abortion industry had already entrenched itself in our state.
In 2023 alone, 12,705 surgical abortions were performed across seven reported facilities in Arizona. This number does not include chemical abortions, which are increasingly common and more difficult to track in detail.
Two Planned Parenthood facilities—in Tempe and Flagstaff—do not appear in the report because they were not fully operational in 2023 and did not perform surgical abortions. However, both clinics are now fully open and positioned to expand services under Arizona’s new constitutional amendment declaring abortion a “fundamental right.”
These facilities weren’t included in the 2023 data—but they will be moving forward. And with surgical and chemical abortions alike being completely accessible, the number of lives lost will certainly rise.
These aren’t just statistics. These are real buildings where children lost their lives—some within walking distance of the State Capitol.
Here are the seven facilities listed in the 2023 report:
Camelback Family Planning – 4,295 abortions 4141 N 32nd St. STE 105, Phoenix, AZ 85018 – 5.84 miles from the Arizona State Capitol
Family Planning Associated Medical Group – 2,644 abortions 1331 N 7th St. Unit 225, Phoenix, AZ 85006 – 2.17 miles
Acacia Women’s Center – 2,355 abortions 2023 W Bethany Home Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85015 – 5.12 miles
Choices Women’s Center – 1,148 abortions 5240 E Knight Dr, #112, Tucson, AZ 85712 – 108.26 miles
Planned Parenthood Glendale Health Center – 1,422 abortions 5771 W Eugle Ave, Glendale, AZ 85304 – 10.38 miles
Planned Parenthood Southern Arizona Regional Health Center – 552 abortions 2255 N Wyatt Dr, Tucson, AZ 85712 – 108.71 miles
Desert Star Family Planning, LLC – 264 abortions 5501 N 19th Ave #420, Phoenix, AZ 85015 – 4.74 miles
And here are the two locations not included in the 2023 report—but now fully operational and likely to contribute to higher abortion totals in future reports:
Planned Parenthood – Flagstaff 2500 S Woodlands Village Blvd, Suite 12, Flagstaff, AZ 86001 – 149.3 miles
Planned Parenthood – Tempe 1837 E Baseline Rd, Tempe, AZ 85283 – 13.1 miles
In 2023, Arizona recorded 77,881 live births. But alongside that hope, 12,705 babies were surgically aborted—and that’s just what we can confirm. That means over 14% of pregnancies in Arizona ended in death rather than life. With new clinics now open and constitutional protections in place, there is every reason to believe that number will rise sharply in 2025 and beyond.
Let’s be clear—this is not about “empowering women.” The abortion industry has stalked poor and minority communities for decades, flooding their neighborhoods with clinics and pushing abortion as a solution to poverty. They’ve told vulnerable women that ending the life of their own child is liberation. They’ve called this “healthcare.” They’ve called it “compassion.”
It’s none of those things.
They don’t offer housing. They don’t offer prenatal support. They don’t offer stability or hope. They offer a suction machine and a billing invoice—and they call that freedom.
Friedrich Nietzsche warned of what happens when societies lose their moral clarity:
“There is a point in the history of society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly.”
That is precisely what we are witnessing now. Arizona didn’t become more just when it added abortion to the Constitution. It became more dangerous, more dishonest. It wrapped violence in the language of rights and stripped away the last legal defenses for the most defenseless people among us.
This is not progress. This is exploitation—and it’s protected now by law.
The abortion industry and its political allies think the people of Arizona will look the other way. That we’ll adjust. That we’ll stop being horrified. But we won’t. We will keep pointing out the numbers. We will keep naming the buildings. We will keep exposing the lies.
And we will not stop until the killing ends—and Arizona remembers what it means to protect life.
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
American Patriots believe in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. No one should be compelled to oppose their sincerely held beliefs, no matter how silly they may be. Freedom of speech is graciously bestowed upon the wise and the imbecile. It is the latter who scorn liberty and mock our institutions.
Chandler Unified School District (CUSD)
On April 17, 2025, AZ Free News exposed CUSD board president Patti Serrano who refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance during a school board meeting. Video footage (below) shows Serrano standing, hand-over-heart, lips unmoving. CUSD residents say this is a persistent pattern of distasteful behavior.
According to AZ Free News, “Serrano’s refusal to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance aligns with her other progressive values: legalizing abortion, increasing gun control, advancing LGBTQ+ ideologies in minors, and supporting Islamic terrorist groups aligned with Palestine.” The article also said Serrano took an oath of office with her hand on the book “Life is a Banquet” instead of the traditional Bible.
What cause did Serrano swear to uphold in place of the U.S. Constitution? After that infamous Pledge of Allegiance, Serrano appears to bow her head in invocation. Since she doesn’t believe in God, who exactly is she praying to? These questions should alarm every CUSD parent and constituent who upholds the rule of law. The answers would be irrelevant if Serrano resigned from public office.
Phoenix Elementary School District (PESD)
PESD—the same district where former board member Jessica Bueno used personal property as collateral to bail out a convicted child sex offender—is home to leftist activist Alicia Vink.
Vink proudly backs the district’s Black Lives Matter Resolution in honor of the deceased convicted felon George Floyd. She has also worn cat ears in support of anti-Christian board members in the Washington Elementary School District (more on that later). Vink was determined to make a fool of herself at the April 8, 2025, school board meeting when she announced:
“I chose not to stand for our Pledge of Allegiance today because I will not stand for a national or state education system that is unjust—and not only doesn’t support our district values of diversity, equity, and inclusion, but is actively fighting against us.”
Watch her speech below.
Vink declared that she “would not stand for any behavior that puts our kids at risk” as she proceeded to poison the mind of every student who attended or watched the meeting. Her self-serving antics are an embarrassment to all Arizonans and will only continue to drive families away from this failing institution.
PESD would be better off without Vink’s presence on the school board.
Washington Elementary School District (WESD)
In 2023, the WESD governing board voted 5-0 to terminate an 11-year student-teaching partnership with Arizona Christian University. WESD board member Tamillia Valenzuela took charge by removing the agreement from the consent agenda, claiming that ACU’s core beliefs on biblical marriage made gender-confused people feel “unsafe.”
Her sentiments were echoed by former board member Nikkie Whaley and current board members Kyle Clayton, Jenni Abbott, and Lindsey Peterson (Valenzuela, Clayton, and Abbott identify as LGBTQ). In July 2022, Whaley, Abbott, Peterson, and current (re-elected) board member Bill Adams voted in favor of an LGBTQ Resolution for elementary students. Adults who promote and celebrate multiple sexual identities in children bring shame and disgrace upon civilized societies. Note that during the ACU discussion, Valenzuela cited this resolution as just cause for discriminating against Christians.
Valenzuela, also known as “Cat Ears” among community members, has never stood to face the flag or recite the Pledge during school board meetings. However, she does take ownership in reading a land acknowledgement to shame Glendale and Phoenix residents with no connection to events that may have occurred over 500 years ago. Below are a few random timestamps to corroborate my claims:
April 24, 2025 – Valenzuela reads the land acknowledgement and remains seated during the Pledge
February 23, 2023 – Here is the discussion and vote to terminate WESD’s contract with ACU
Where are all the Patriots hiding?
The Founders (any 18th-century American, really) would be appalled by our present generation of so-called Patriots. We have the meanest cell phone and keyboard warriors across the Valley who won’t attend a board meeting, not even when something goes horribly wrong. Rather than proactively defend our youth, most constituents retreat to their echo chambers of digital outrage. I’m a member of several Facebook groups wherein parents devour each other while raging against board members, administrators, educators, and staff. This isn’t doing your kids any good.
Parents pay attention! Voters take notes! The issues in Arizona’s public education system must be confronted head-on.
In 2026, Serrano’s term in CUSD and Valenzuela’s and Clayton’s terms in WESD will end. Vink (who ran on an “Equity” platform in 2020) retained her seat, so residents are stuck with her until 2028. Still, two seats will open in PESD in 2026. According to Ballotpedia, the 2024 general elections were canceled for PESD due to a lack of opposition. The school board also gained a new member who never appeared on the ballot. There is no reason this should happen again.
I defy the card-carrying tactics and rhetoric of Patti Serrano, Alicia Vink, and Tamillia Valenzuela. Do Arizonans want to keep taking chances on communist sympathizers and social justice zealots controlling their children’s education? Out of 5 million residents in the Greater Phoenix Area, is no one else willing to publicly defend biblical principles, fight for conservative values, and uphold the U.S. Constitution?
It’s time we raise our standards and expectations of school district leadership. If we don’t, what hope does the next generation have?
Australia-based energy firm Woodside announced Monday plans to invest $17 billion in a new liquefied natural gas export facility to be sited in south Louisiana. Company CEO and Managing Director Meg O’Neill said the Louisiana LNG facility represents the single largest greenfield energy project investment, and the largest foreign direct investment in the state’s history.
In a release, the company said the project will support 15,000 jobs during the construction phase and, when completed, will sport a total export capacity of more than 27 million tons per annum of LNG. Originally named the Driftwood LNG project by previous owner Tellurian, Woodside acquired the project in 2024 for just $900 million.
The timing of Woodside’s announcement on Monday, which represented the 99th day of President Donald Trump’s second administration, serves to symbolize the impressive success the President and his senior appointees have had in completely changing the energy and climate policy debate in the U.S. across their first 100 days. Nowhere has this sea change in policy been more obvious than as it relates to the LNG export industry.
When Trump was sworn into office on January 20, America’s LNG sector had spent the previous 358 days as a target of demonization by former President Joe Biden and his senior officials. That stemmed from the decision by the White House to implement a so-called “pause” in permitting of new LNG facilities like Louisiana LNG on January 27 last year. Prior to last November’s election, that pause appeared destined to become a permanent feature of federal policy had Kamala Harris won the presidency.
President Trump canceled the Biden pause with a Day 1 executive order, and the industry has since resumed the pace of rapid expansion that had made it one of America’s great growth industries prior to Biden’s irrational move last year.
The resumption of the LNG industry’s rapid growth path is just one of many success stories which Trump’s energy team of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin can point to at the end of this first 100 days time period.
At Interior, Secretary Burgum can point to his efforts to return the federal oil and gas leasing program to normal order both onshore and offshore after four years of its being held hostage by Biden’s Interior Secretary Deb Haaland. He can also highlight last week’s announcement detailing efforts to speed up permitting approvals related requirements under the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.
Zeldin is able to point to his effort to freeze $20 billion in highly questionable grants awarded by his predecessor, Michael Regan, during the final days of the Biden presidency, and claw them back a major savings. He has also embarked on a study focused on the potential reversal of the Obama EPA’s endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, a finding that classifies carbon dioxide, the fundamental building block for all life on Planet Earth, as a pollutant which can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. A successful reversal of that finding could lead to the restoration of honesty in air quality regulation and a focus on elimination of real pollution, which was the intent of the law as it was passed by congress.
Secretary Wright has less ability to directly impact regulatory polices to the nature of his job, but he has become the most effective spokesman for commonsense energy policies to ever hold the Energy Secretary position. He has not shied away from taking on controversial topics, like the need to revitalize the nation’s coal industry to take advantage of America’s enormous wealth of that resource. Wright has also been very blunt and effective in highlighting the role the wind industry has played in forcing consumer utility costs up to all-time highs under the Biden administration.
Taken as a whole, it is hard to imagine a more impactful 100 days related to energy and climate policy than this administration has achieved. Trump’s legion of critics won’t agree with the direction he and his appointees have taken, but they can’t honestly claim they aren’t producing major results. For Trump and his team, it is a simple case of promises made, promises kept.
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.
