The warning signs can no longer be ignored. America’s future as a world power is fading. The emerging alliance of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, spanning the spectrum of autocratic, expansionist ideologies, is poised to seriously threaten Western values and our way of life.
America’s response to a notably more dangerous world has been passive and thoughtless. In three decades, America has gone from the preeminent world power, with the promise of spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world, to a nation of deteriorating moral and strategic standing. We’ve backed ourselves into a dangerous corner.
Our enemies relentlessly undermine our interests and propagandize against us. One even leads public chants of “Death to America.” Russia wages a war of territorial aggression. China menaces our ally in the South China Sea. Hamas’ October 7 massacre was just one of several recent attacks by Iran-associated Islamic terrorist groups.
Weapons programs, especially those involving advanced technology like space weapons and biotech, are being rapidly developed by our enemies. Meanwhile, America’s relative deterrence capability has declined. Defense spending, inflation adjusted, has been reduced while military inductees are versed in the finer points of DEI.
Our Cold War presidents, especially Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Reagan, faced similar dangers to those that challenge us today. The Soviet Union was a powerful force that brutally subjugated Eastern Europe, worked to destabilize regimes around the globe, and seriously intended to establish world hegemony.
Our leaders responded then with certitude and conviction. Ronald Reagan’s approach was not appeasement, but confrontation with superior force. He warned against “blindly hoping for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger by the day.” He recognized that “war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong but when they are weak…then tyrants are tempted.”
Reagan made defeat of the “Evil Empire” the central goal of his presidency. He rebuilt the military and doggedly pursued missile defense systems even when he was ridiculed for supporting “Star Wars.” In the end, it was this missile defense strategy that confounded and broke the Soviets, as Mikhail Gorbachev later confided to Margaret Thatcher.
In contrast, American policy today projects peace through weakness. We foolishly pretend tyrants will be mollified if we don’t provoke them. President Obama not only failed to support ballistic missile defenses, he backed out of commitments to install missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, despite mounting Russian aggression.
Biden fecklessly waived sanctions on Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline, paused military aid to Ukraine, and intentionally slow-walked critical supplies to our Israeli allies. We carefully dole out only enough support to our friends to stave off defeat but not enough to win.
The Cold War presidents were resolute about “stopping partisan politics at the water’s edge,” meaning that domestic political considerations should never impact foreign policy. Today, Biden proves his leftist bona fides by shutting down domestic energy production while treating our enemies more indulgently. Worry over youth protests and Michigan’s electoral support inspired his support of the war aims of Hamas and other Muslim jihadis.
This summer’s presidential debate demonstrated all you need to know about why America is garnering so much disrespect. With pressing problems all about spinning out of control, two candidates with presidential experience vied to be the one to lead us into the future. The result was a farce, a “debate” that was essentially incoherent babbling between two intellectually flabby old men.
One showed the classic hallmarks of senility and should never again be allowed near the nuclear football. The other was unable to construct a coherent argument, instead lapsing into exaggerations and meaningless superlatives. There was nothing resembling serious policy analysis. The two argued over golf scores instead.
Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates writes that “at the very moment that events demand a strong coherent response from the United States, the country cannot provide one.” Americans must take our elections more seriously. We need to stop fixating on policy dead ends like climate change and identity politics.
Our short-term problem now is vulnerability to attack as a result of exhibiting weakness. Our long-term goal must be to select leaders better able to keep us strong and free.
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.
After months of debate surrounding the controversial reauthorization of the Arizona Commerce Authority (ACA), the tension finally broke on the last day of session when HB2210 was raced through the House and Senate and signed by Governor Hobbs.
Everyone at the capitol was aware of the problems surrounding the Commerce Authority. Our elected officials were briefed on the innumerable deficiencies, questionable activities, and likely illegal behavior of the agency. Yet when it came time to act, the legislature capitulated to the special interest benefactors of the agency, passing a reauthorization with no real reforms. The included changes were so inconsequential that an agency dealing with months of negative press about illegal CEO junkets had nothing but accolades for legislative leadership.
What did the final ACA package look like? In exchange for a five-year reauthorization (one of the longest reauthorizations ever granted to the ACA), the agency agreed to add to their board an attorney practiced in litigating Gift Clause violations, a requirement that their board meetings be videoed and hosted online for public review, a cap of “only” 100 state-paid full-time employees, and some reporting requirements for permitting and approval times by local cities and towns.
So, what started out as a hopeful and robust opportunity for reform quickly disintegrated into window dressing changes…
Since becoming President of the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board, Dr. Libby Hart-Wells has increasingly displayed hostility toward her fellow Board Members Amy Carney and Carine Werner.
At nearly every board meeting, Hart-Wells repeatedly interrupts and reprimands Members Carney and Werner, stifling any discussion or differing viewpoints, and repeatedly insists they stay on topic by saying “not on the agenda” whenever they attempt to ask a foundational question concerning an agenda item. This effectively curtails any potential for meaningful dialogue before it can begin.
Hart-Wells’ response to criticism is notably defensive, as evident in numerous board meetings throughout the year. Her authoritative and viewpoint-intolerant leadership style was particularly evident at the June 25th board meeting, where, knowing that Member Lindsay would not be present—a reliable progressive vote—she declined to include agenda items requested by Member Carney, despite a board policy that gives each board member an equal right to include agenda items for discussion.
Furthermore, during a public hearing at that meeting on the fiscal year 2024-2025 expenditure budget, Hart-Wells not only cut off Member Carney but also interrupted my public comments as well.
The agenda for the meeting specified that the board would hold a public hearing on the adoption of the SUSD proposed fiscal year 2024-2025 expenditure budget, in accordance with A.R.S. §38-431.02 and A.R.S. §15-905(D)(E).
A.R.S. §38-431.02 is often referred to as Arizona’s open meeting law (OML) and, as Dr. Hart- Wells should know because the former Attorney General successfully sued SUSD on this very issue just two years ago over the mask mandate debacle, the OML applies to “public hearings” just like any other board meeting.
A.R.S. §15-905 pertains to school district budgets, and subsection (D) mandates that the governing board must conduct a public hearing to present the proposed budget and explain it upon request of any person.
SUSD is a large district. The budget is not insignificant. The proposed fiscal year 2024-2025 expenditure budget totals $437,700,168 and before the board approved it, they were obligated to explain it to the public.
In line with Arizona law, I chose to address the board and seek clarification on the budget. However, just as she does with board members who bring up uncomfortable topics (for her), Dr. Hart-Wells repeatedly interrupted me during my discussion with staff who were explaining the budget, as required by law. At one point, she even turned off my microphone, effectively halting my comments. Under the OML, board members cannot simply interject and interrupt speakers during public comment. But as usual that doesn’t stop this district from doing things their own way and gaslighting parents if they object.
Dr. Hart-Wells, after breaking off my comments, insisted that discussions should focus strictly on “the proposed M&O budget for next school year” despite the public notice stating the purpose of the hearing was the adoption of the entire fiscal year 2024-2025 expenditure budget, not solely the M&O section of the budget.
Furthermore, the expenditure budget summary, as presented, explicitly mentions the ESSER funds. Therefore, discussing ESSER funding during the hearing, as I was trying to do, is directly relevant to the budget and “on topic.”
Dr. Hart-Wells had the audacity (and lack of self-awareness) to say publicly that she would “appreciate it” if I followed the state laws, yet her actions appear to violate both Arizona’s open meeting law and A.R.S. §15-905(D). Restricting meaningful discussion on pertinent budgetary matters outlined in the public notice and summary provided by the District is a clear violation of state law. By statute, the board is obligated to explain the budget – to the people who pay the taxes to support that budget. In this mandatory duty, she failed.
If you share my frustration with the way the Governing Board has been operating, continuously violating OML, disrespecting the rights of the public, preventing meaningful discussions on critical topics, and rubber-stamping Superintendent Menzel’s failing agenda, and if you believe our children deserve better, I urge you to vote for change this November. Let’s elect Jeanne Beasley, Drew Hassler, and Gretchen Jacobs to the SUSD school board. These candidates are committed to supporting parental rights, academic excellence, fiscal responsibility, and school safety.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
The U.S. Olympic team will be supplied with room air conditioning units, joining other countries like Germany, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and Italy.
Organizers of the Summer Olympics Games to be held in Paris next month were hoping to force the games to be held sans air conditioning — what a wonderful virtue signal that would send to the climate-alarmed public!
The plan, as USA Today reported, was to force all event venues and athlete housing units to rely on a geothermal cooling system devised by the French. But, you know, it can get hot in Paris in the summer, and participating athletes and countries had some concerns about it.
So, despite the grand, centrally planned net-zero initiatives financed by trillions of debt-funded dollars and euros and pounds, many countries are planning to keep their athletes calm, collected and properly cooled with electricity-hogging room a/c units.
Note that the list of countries above includes some that are led by the world’s most aggressive and notorious climate scolds.
German leaders in this century have succeeded in largely destroying what had been the industrial powerhouse of Europe at the altar of climate alarmism, investing billions of debt-funded euros in a Quixotic attempt to power their society with windmills. That plan has been so successful to date that last winter, in a desperate attempt to avoid power blackouts, the government there resorted to reactivating mothballed coal plants and tore down a wind development to expand a domestic coal mining operation.
In the UK, the Tories — ostensibly the “conservatives” in Britain — now face an electoral wipeout of unprecedented proportions due in part to their buying whole hog into climate alarmist dogma.
In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose public approval rating would make President Joe Biden blush, faces a similar fate for similar reasons in national elections that will take place in 2025.
The governments of Australia and New Zealand, in nominally “conservative” or “liberal” regimes alike, have also embarked well down the net-zero path to deindustrialization.
Yet every one of these countries will be shipping out hundreds of energy consuming, greenhouse-gas-emitting air conditioners to Paris.
No national government has invested more time and more debt-funded dollars in virtue signaling and lecturing the public about climate change in recent years than the Biden regime. To hear President Joe Biden, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Climate Envoy John Podesta, former Climate Envoy John Kerry and Vice President Kamala Harris tell it, a 1.5-degree rise in temperature is in fact an “existential threat,” one that requires us to saddle our great-grandchildren with trillions of more dollars in unsustainable debt to address right now, or — wait for it — we will all die!
But hey, we can’t have our Olympic athletes suffering in rooms where the Paris geothermal cooling system might only get temperatures down to an unbearable 78 degrees Fahrenheit, so it is imperative that the United States join the room a/c caravan across the Pond to gay Paree.
That is basically what USA Today quotes U.S. Olympic and Paralympic CEO Sarah Hirshland as saying: “We have great respect for the work that’s been done by the Paris organizing committee in particular and their focus on sustainability,” Hirshland said. “As you can imagine, this is a period of time in which consistency and predictability is critical for Team USA’s performance. In our conversations with athletes, this was a very high priority and something that the athletes felt was a critical component in their performance capability.”
But wait: If climate change is truly an existential threat to all mankind, shouldn’t the desires of a few thousand Olympics athletes to stay cool in their rooms simply be ignored? For the “greater good” and all that stuff?
After all, that is what the central governments in every one of these countries do whenever public opinion disapproves of their policy choices. Why should this become an exception?
The global religious belief that mankind can control the climate like it has a thermostat we can turn up and down at will is an example of unbridled hubris that is unrivalled in human history. That hubris is only exceeded by the rank hypocrisy practiced by the loudest and most visible of the religion’s adherents.
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.
We know exactly the cause of our disastrous immigration crisis. It was us. We voters have only ourselves to blame.
Biden didn’t even try to deceive us on this one. In the 2020 presidential debates, he vowed “on day one” to reverse Trump’s immigration policies. He promised to provide free healthcare to illegal aliens.
Unlike many other campaign promises, he faithfully kept these. He also terminated the Remain in Mexico policy and ended the ban on travel from centers of terrorism. He loosened the rules for seeking asylum so that millions of healthy appearing military-aged males were able to claim, “I am afraid” and be admitted to the land of the free.
Most Americans didn’t think through the consequences of an open immigration policy. Now, the associated problems are beyond obvious. Yet many, particularly religious NGOs, see welcoming all immigrants as an act of decency and compassion which all people of goodwill should applaud.
Is importing tens of millions of persons without qualifications into America, with only the hope they will somehow engage and become productive and independent, really the way to build a better world? There are 8 billion humans on this planet. They obviously can’t all be brought here.
Immigration does not increase the world’s net wealth. It merely redistributes it. The winners are those who are willing and able to make the arduous trek here and defy our laws. The losers are those still in their country of origin and the rest of us.
But the real force driving the illegal immigration surge came from Democrats and the political left. There is no other way to interpret the events over the last three years other than as a brazen attempt to attract millions of future Democrat voters and permanently alter the character of the American polity. Long after the political winds began to blow against the administration’s policies, the Biden gang was willing to take one for the team and keep on going.
The question now is: will the grand scheme work? Signs are appearing that racial minorities might not be Democrat wards forever, like the perhaps apocryphal one who told Democrats, “We’ve been voting for you for 60 years and we’re still poor.” Democrat-led big cities, which is virtually all of them, are getting fed up with the squalor and budget pressures that have come with thousands of demanding “newcomers” appearing in the night, not to mention luxury hotels filling up. The immigration disaster is looming as a major—possibly the decisive—factor in the upcoming election.
Immigration advocates claim that immigrants are actually valuable additions to our society. They are correct that modern America was created by immigrants, without whose efforts we wouldn’t exist.
Yet there’s a world of difference between the Ellis Island immigrants who loved America and were eager to fulfill the requirements of citizenship, and the millions streaming in today. To paraphrase JFK, they seem to care little about what they can do for their new country, but only what it will do for them.
Even if unlimited immigration were a great policy that benefited both immigrants and their hosts, the timing is terrible for two reasons. First is the rapid advance of AI and other labor-saving technologies that will replace many of the low-scale jobs that, in the brightest scenario, the uneducated masses would fill. The question for labor economists has changed from who will pick the lettuce and staff the fast food chains to how we find employment for the laborers—now including the “newcomers”—whose jobs are disappearing.
The other, more serious, problem is that we live in an increasingly dangerous world. With the rise of Islamist jihadists and the growing belligerence of international communism and other mortal enemies, it is lunacy for America to maintain an essentially unmanned border.
The solutions at this point have narrowed. First, we need an administration that will turn off the spigot. But now we have 20 million non-Americans who, as they age, will increasingly demand their share of benefits, which are already imperiled due to lack of future funding.
Repatriation, the ultimate solution, is logistically and politically fraught. We will be a long time regretting this massive foolishness.
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.
Last weekend, the Arizona legislature completed its constitutional duty and finally passed a state budget, concluding its business for the year. Looming over the entire process was a budget deficit that needed to be filled—fluctuating from around $1.6 billion to just over $2 billion over the 3-year budgeting period.
Though the left and the media wanted to blame historic tax cuts and landmark school choice expansion for the shortfall, the real problem was record spending that resulted in Arizona’s budget growing by over 50% in the last five years. So, when lawmakers gaveled into session in January, the solution was to right-size state spending. Our organization even provided a roadmap for a successful budget process:
Cut spending to align with current and future funding projections
Don’t raid the rainy-day fund
Don’t use budget gimmicks to balance the sheets
Don’t roll back our school choice programs
Don’t raise taxes
So how did the legislature do? Here is a breakdown of the good and the not so good results from the budget:
