by Paul Parisi | Sep 3, 2024 | Opinion
By Paul Parisi |
On August 26, 2024, Our America Hometown Heroes made their voices heard at the Phoenix City Council meeting, standing up for local control and the autonomy of the Phoenix Police Department (PPD). Wearing their signature yellow T-shirts, several Hometown Heroes rallied and spoke during the public comment period, advocating for the city’s ability to manage its own police force without federal intervention.
In stark contrast, a smaller group of Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists attended the same meeting, calling for a DOJ Consent Decree that would place the PPD under court-ordered oversight. Their demands stemmed from a controversial June report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which criticized the PPD and pushed for federal oversight despite the department’s voluntary efforts to implement sweeping reforms.
Our America’s presence at the meeting was bolstered by leaders of organizations representing minority communities, such as BLEXIT Arizona, the Hispanic Liberty Alliance, and the Independent Women’s Network. This coalition underscores the broad support for local control.
During the meeting, four speakers from Our America took to the podium, urging the Phoenix mayor and council to continue the reforms that have already significantly reduced crime while safeguarding all citizens’ civil rights.
Reflecting on her long history of positive engagement with law enforcement, Bella Ceballos-Viner shared, “For over 25 years, I have had nothing but great experiences, and I speak on behalf of my Hispanic community and many African-Americans who support the police.” Her words resonated with the room, highlighting the importance of community trust and collaboration with local law enforcement.
Christy Narsi, another Hometown Hero and part of Independent’s Women’s Network spoke passionately about the failures of DOJ Consent Decrees in other cities, warning the council against relinquishing local control.
Christy emphasized, “I urge you not to surrender local autonomy by allowing federal overreach to steal control of our local law enforcement and the city they serve.” Her argument underscored the belief that decisions about local policing should be made by those who know the community best.
The debate over the future of the PPD is a microcosm of a larger national conversation about the balance between federal oversight and local autonomy in law enforcement. Our America firmly believes that the best way to achieve safer streets and a brighter future is through a combination of police and criminal justice reforms tailored to the unique needs of each community. The reforms that the PPD has already implemented are a testament to the power of local action and the effectiveness of community-driven solutions.
As the City of Phoenix faces pressure from the DOJ to enter into a Consent Decree, the voices of local residents and activists like those from Our America will play a crucial role in determining the path forward.
By continuing to advocate for local control, Our America Hometown Heroes are not only standing up for the autonomy of the Phoenix Police Department but also for the principle that communities are best served when they have a direct say in how they are governed.
Paul Parisi is the Arizona Grassroots Director for Our America.
by Cheryl Todd | Sep 3, 2024 | Opinion
By Cheryl Todd |
When tragedy strikes, politicians often rush to draft new laws to show that they are taking action in the wake of public outcry. But in the haste to “do something,” proposed solutions can actually have the opposite effect and make us less safe. They limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones and embolden criminals. Even worse, these knee-jerk legislative “fixes” are not only ineffective but dangerous.
New data continues to confirm what many of us have known for years: gun control doesn’t work. According to a recent study at the Duke University School of Medicine, which examined the impact of 36 different gun control laws on suicide and homicide rates involving children under the age of 18, there are “no significant reductions in suicide death rates in states with laws setting a minimum age for possession or purchase of firearms.”
Even in states with enhanced regulations for background checks, mandatory waiting periods, safe storage mandates, and Red Flag laws, researchers could not find “notable distinctions between states with and without the identified laws” when it came to deaths by homicide.
We have also seen data that affirms my deeply held belief that firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens can save lives. Colorado State University Professor Youngsung Kim and K. Alexander Adams from the University of Wyoming’s Firearms Research Center analyzed crime statistics from all 50 states plus the District of Columbia between 1980 and 2018, finding that states with constitutional carry laws have a 6 percent lower homicide rate. They concluded by stating “Constitutional Carry does not lead to large-scale changes in homicides or firearm suicides. The doomsday scenarios of constitutional-carry opponents are not supported by social science.”
While restrictive gun control measures are clearly not the answer to curbing violence and keeping our families safe, we know that inaction yields the same result. That’s why I’m proud to be a part of Women for Gun Rights, a national, non-partisan organization that is working to safeguard the Second Amendment. We fundamentally believe that education – not legislation – is the key to a safer, stronger, more prosperous future.
Since our founding, we have sponsored firearms training classes for women and educators, advocated for programs like FASTER to protect children in the classroom, supported hunting education, testified in Congress and State Houses across the country in opposition of harmful legislation, and amplified the stories of women whose lives were saved by the Second Amendment.
During times of crisis, it is tempting to expect our leaders to enact immediate solutions and broad reforms without considering the long-term, unintended consequences. In these situations, data and research – coupled with some common sense – should drive the conversation instead of impulsive legislation written only to appease the vocal anti-gun crowd.
If we really want to protect our loved ones, we need policy decisions to reflect the facts – not political agendas.
Cheryl Todd is the Arizona Director for Women for Gun Rights.
by Earl Taylor | Sep 2, 2024 | Opinion
By Earl Taylor, Jr. |
One of the principles of liberty our Founders adhered to is that only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being reserved to the people. This principle is clearly followed in Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution wherein is outlined the 20 or so areas in which Congress can make law. This concept was abandoned decades ago as Congress began legislating in many other areas not mentioned in Article 1, Section 8.
James Madison clearly explained this principle in Federalist Paper 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.” Unlike the federal Constitution, you will not find in state constitutions specific areas in which state legislatures can make law because there are so many.
How, then, are we to understand the limits our state legislatures, our city councils, our county board of supervisors have in making law? The answer to this question lies in the constitutional phrase “promote the General Welfare.” If one observes the 20 or so powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution, they are all areas that benefit the whole people like: military defense, a monetary system, a postal system, a system of weights and measures, a federal court system, etc. In other words, general welfare means if you tax all the people, then you only spend that money for things that benefit the whole people. Under “general welfare” there is to be no tax money going to individuals, special groups, or specific geographic locations, or any other kind of “specific” welfare.
This same principle should apply to state and local governments. For example, city councils should ask themselves what are the things that benefit all the people and that all the people use? The answer would include such things as: good streets, a well-functioning domestic water system, a good sewage system, good police protection, a fair local court system, etc. These are things individuals all want and are willing to spend money to obtain because they use them. It’s really what makes us want to live in a community rather than out in the wilderness. And furthermore, there is usually not much argument or contention about these things because we consider them things that make our lives comfortable.
But what happens when government officials try to use our tax money to provide things most of us don’t want and don’t use, such as: light rail and bus systems, sports stadiums, homeless facilities, conference centers, arts centers, museums, libraries, electric vehicle charging stations, narrower streets and more bike lanes? They try to sell us on these ideas as “Quality of Life” issues. These are issues that do not pay for themselves and therefore are a significant burden paid for mostly by taxpayers who do not use them. These are also issues that cause the most disagreement and contention in a community.
But the true purpose of government is to only protect equal rights so that people can be free to invent and produce items that give us real quality of life. This also leaves more resources in the hands of the people to give compassionate service to the truly needy.
The authority to govern rests innately with the people. Government only has the authority that the people give it. If a person has no authority to take from one person and give to another (stealing), then how can he give his agent, the government, the authority to forcibly take money from citizen A and give it to citizen B so he can, for example, be transported from point A to point B? Isn’t that stealing also? Someone may say, “Well, that’s why we vote.” But can the vote take away a person’s property by legalizing stealing? Of course not!
When we vote this November, hopefully we will choose those who respect the rights of all citizens and reject those who endorse programs which use the power of government to do what individuals can’t do – steal from the people.
Earl Taylor, Jr. is the President of The National Center for Constitutional Studies.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Sep 1, 2024 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Arizona, we have a problem. Apparently, the group behind Proposition 140—a ballot initiative aimed to bring California-style elections to our state—got very creative in their signature gathering efforts. In fact, you could say that in many ways, they excelled in duplicating their work. And that’s exactly why Prop 140 should be invalidated.
Back in July, the special interests behind the idea to bring jungle primaries and ranked choice voting to Arizona submitted signatures with the Arizona Secretary of State to qualify the so-called “Make Elections Fair Act” for the November General Election. Just a couple weeks later, a lawsuit was filed after it was determined that a large portion of their signatures were collected in violation of state law. And late last week, we received some good news. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the signature challenge lawsuit against Prop 140—which was facing a potential deadline due to the printing of ballots—may continue to ensure that the 40,000 duplicate signatures submitted by the Prop 140 committee are examined and removed from the final tally.
Yes, you read that right. The group that supposedly wants to “make elections fair” is content to do so by counting duplicate signatures (i.e. voters that signed more than once). What does that say about the true nature of this initiative?
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity | Aug 30, 2024 | Opinion
By Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity |
Scottsdale Unified Board Member Libby Hart-Wells appears to have used her position to bypass the Code of Conduct Committee, pressing top district administrators to remove ‘navel’ from the list of body parts that students must cover at school.
Due to Hart-Wells’ actions, Scottsdale’s Chaparral High School began the 2024-2025 school year by featuring on social media a female student wearing a bra top and low-cut jeans, with her entire torso exposed.
Although Hart-Wells’ actions occurred in 2022, parents are only now becoming aware of them due to newly obtained public records. These records reveal Hart-Wells’ growing frustration when staff did not promptly comply with her request to permit midriff shirts. In fact, SUSD staff members told Hart-Wells that they wished to honor the work of the Code of Conduct Committee, however, that message did little to sway Hart-Wells from pursuing her personal agenda.
None of Hart-Wells’ emails indicated that she consulted parents, committee members, or her fellow board members about her plans to modify the policy on students’ acceptable dress.
“It’s clear that board member Hart-Wells does not respect the district or parents or have our students’ best interest in mind. We need school board members who prioritize academics and respect parents’ involvement in their kids’ lives. We need family-friendly school board candidates Gretchen Jacobs, Jeanne Beasley and Drew Hassler,” stated a concerned SUSD parent.
The district emails reveal that, without providing evidence, Hart-Wells asserted, “I did get some student feedback.”
“Please know I press this issue not for myself or as any slight to the committee’s work, but for the students and the learning environment,” wrote Hart Wells. In yet another email, she stated, “I have requested your reconsideration more than once but remain without a substantive response” after the district didn’t acquiesce to her demands.
District emails also show that Assistant Superintendent Milissa Sackos and Director of Support Services Shannon Cronn pushed back on the change internally, and that the district’s cabinet concluded that the modification should not be made. Sackos decried Hart-Wells’ request as “contrary to the committee recommendations after including, without limitation, a discussion with cabinet and school-level administrators.”
Ultimately, Superintendent Menzel instructed staff, “I agree we should do this and hopefully include it on the October 18th consent agenda.” A private memo to governing board members dated October 14, 2022, states “this request was discussed with several stakeholder groups.” Public records show the “stakeholder groups” were only Hart-Wells.
At the October 18, 2022, board meeting, without any public discussion to indicate that the code of conduct had been modified, board members Zach Lindsay, Julie Cieniawski, Libby Hart-Wells, and Patty Beckman approved the revised 80-page Code of Conduct, which was now lacking the word ‘navel.’
That’s what you’re getting from your school board members, Scottsdale. It’s time for a change this November.
Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity is a coalition of Scottsdale Unified parents, teachers & community members committed to academic success for every student.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Aug 29, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
Kamala Harris in her nomination acceptance at the Democratic National Convention assured the roaring crowd that she would “never stop fighting” for the American people and that she would “blaze a new way forward.” The speech disclosed no details, but she appeared to have in mind merely adding to the benefits that the welfare state bestows on grateful voters.
Subsidies for home mortgages, forgiveness of student loans, and free universal preschool have been dangled as possibilities. However, Harris and the other purveyors of free stuff have a big problem. They are running out of other peoples’ money to give away.
It’s not just America but the world’s advanced economies who are seeing the bill come due for decades of social spending exceeding revenue. American leftists like to chide fiscal conservatives for fretting about high tax rates, but economists now note that some high-tax European states are approaching the peak of the Laffer curve, the point at which raising tax rates fails to raise additional revenues. That means hitting the wall.
Western politicians over the last century developed a different style of campaigning for office. Rather than emphasizing the common good and overall strength of the nation, they competed on the basis of what government services they could provide to individuals and groups.
The responses to the Great Depression and the COVID crisis were especially harmful. The New Deal failed to end the depression. We have WWII to thank for that. But the traumatic experience convinced many Americans to think of government as their benevolent caretaker.
The economic deprivations caused by the COVID crisis were due to mostly self-inflicted wounds like the economic and educational shutdowns. Worse, long after the crisis had passed, the checks kept coming to Americans who were not impoverished. The “emergency” expenditures morphed into entitlements.
America has developed a culture of spending which caused the national debt in 2023 to exceed 120% of GDP while 100% has long been considered the outer limit of acceptable indebtedness. We also have hundreds of trillions more in future obligations to beneficiaries with no funding source available.
Time and demographics are not on our side. In just the next 12 years, aging baby boomers will reduce the ratio of workers (25 to 64) to retirees (65 and older) from 3:1 to 2:1. The fastest growing demographic group is those 85 and older, who require extra funding. Moreover, increased security risks like war and terrorism will create additional budgetary stresses.
There are fewer alternatives to reduced spending than ever available. Tax increases are politically unpopular and often don’t produce the hoped for outcomes because they reduce productivity. European countries have about 50% higher tax revenues than America, yet their real GDP per capita is lower, even factoring in the government services and subsidies they receive.
The era of low interest rates and the accompanying “sugar high” is over. The higher cost of debt financing will inevitably impair the ability of succeeding generations, already tapped out, to shoulder the burden of our selfish spending.
By now, we’ve breezed past all the easy fixes. We are facing severe warning signals, and all the red lights are blinking. Yet in spite of the urgent need to change our ways, both political parties studiously look the other way. Getting elected is still the imperative that trumps all others.
The general accounting office (GAO) recently made recommendations for minor adjustments to federal government procedures that would save $208 billion over the next decade. The major one was equalizing payment rates for offices determining Medicare benefits. The proposals are non-controversial and politicians supporting them could take cover by pointing out that they are endorsed by a non-partisan agency. The response has been…crickets.
Scores of scholarly papers have been written on how to reduce government waste, how to expedite permitting, and how to recover COVID over-payments, all to no avail. The politicians just aren’t that interested and, sadly, neither is the public.
We’re hearing a lot about democracy lately. Both parties claim the other one is an existential threat. Advice to would-be political leaders who are courageous enough to go beyond pontificating and do something that might actually preserve our democracy is simply this: cut the spending.
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.
