During World War II, the civilians of the Axis nations suffered greatly. Their daily lives were disrupted by bombing. Severe food shortages were common. Families were separated. An estimated 2 million civilians died in Japan alone.
Yet the Allied powers would have thought it preposterous to provide humanitarian aid. These countries had attacked us and were committed to achieving world domination. Our only hope to save civilization was to force their surrender. Instead of sending relief packages, we dropped atomic bombs on them.
You know how it worked out. America and the Allies prevailed and proved to be unusually benevolent victors. Germany, Italy, and Japan eventually became functioning, prosperous nations.
During the war, the Allies, like combatants throughout history, realized it was lunacy to work against your own war aims by subsidizing your enemy. Yet that is precisely what America is forcing on Israel in the Gaza War with our persistent calls for ceasefires, which give the beleaguered Hamas forces the opportunity to regroup and resupply.
Anthony Blinken alone has made at least three trips pressuring Israel to give their enemy a fighting chance by providing humanitarian aid. President Netanyahu is widely criticized for not going along.
The American far left, which exerts an outsized influence on foreign policy in Democratic circles, holds large rallies calling for a complete ceasefire. For them, Israel’s only way to avoid international censure is to admit defeat and accept subjugation to their savage foe, an unthinkable option.
Netanyahu’s response to the unprovoked, horrific massacre orchestrated by Hamas on October 6 was transparent. Decades of seeking accommodation with them through negotiations had come to naught. Hamas, among the Islamist terrorist groups sponsored by Iran, has fighters who since birth have been taught to hate all Jews.
The only strategic goal of any interest to Hamas is the complete annihilation of the Jewish state. They put Israel into a position where it had to permanently destroy Hamas to have any hope for a safe, peaceful future.
America seemed to initially understand the Israeli position. Israel is a small, mostly Jewish state of 10 million residents surrounded by 24 hostile countries with 500 million Muslims, most of whom ascribe to an ideology that demands eradicating Judaism. Every day, Israeli Jews must defend their right to exist.
America’s initial support of Israel’s response to a massive act of war melted under pressure from the pro-Muslim left to end the collateral damage of civilian death and suffering. The Israeli military is considered one of the most careful anywhere, sometimes amending battle plans to avoid civilian casualties.
Hamas, on the other hand, uses civilians as human shields, often housing them in the same building as military targets. Hamas celebrates their deaths as public relations coups.
Wartime hostages are always a difficult issue. Few loved ones anywhere would act differently than those piteously begging now for the return of their family members.
Yet the cruel calculus of war is that ransoming hostages, especially in lopsided transactions, inevitably means more will be taken in the future. Only a policy of remorselessly attacking hostage takers can prevent future potential kidnappings.
At this point, it is clear that the Biden administration, once Israel’s ally, is now siding with Hamas. Biden publicly criticizes Netanyahu for not agreeing to an immediate ceasefire. He is planning to build a large port into Gaza to accommodate bounteous food shipments.
We seem not to know or care that this is handing victory to Israel’s enemy. If Hamas can escape consequences for the October 6 debacle and live to fight another day, their greatest dreams will be achieved.
America has not only been an inconstant friend to Israel, we did much to enable this Gaza war in the first place. Obama and Biden rescued Iran when it faced a serious domestic uprising. They also provided the subsidies for Iran to fund its proxies, which are now enthusiastically killing Americans. The dynamic duo has virtually assured that Iran will soon be nuclear armed.
At a time when the world order is changing and new alliances are being formed, America does itself great harm by proving such a weak and indecisive ally. Make no mistake, the world is watching.
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.
An enthusiastic, large crowd exclaimed in unison, “Everyone deserves a birthday!” The takeaway for anyone truly listening to all the speeches and observing the diversity of people and many organizations participating in the Arizona March for Life is that abortion is not merely a political issue. Every abortion decision involves layers of complicated, emotional, and often unexpectedly difficult circumstances. Every abortion choice is deeply personal, not political, and ultimately prevents the celebration of a birthday as it ends the life of an innocent human being.
Labeling those who stand for life as “anti-abortion groups” is a tiring old tactic used by activists and allies of Planned Parenthood (the mainstream media) to cast a biased label on a multifaceted pro-life movement. This narrative fails to capture the essence of what we represent and stand for. What the mainstream media doesn’t show or tell you about us is proof that it is not objective and is nearly universally supportive of on-demand abortion.
The gap between the portrayal of the pro-life movement and its true intentions was evident following the Arizona March for Life, held near the state capitol last Friday in Phoenix. More than 3,000 citizens gathered to express a collective commitment to “Walk With Every Woman, For Every Child,” aiming to shift the conversation toward making abortion unthinkable and highlighting support for women facing unplanned pregnancies.
With a radical abortion rights initiative underway in our state, this topic necessarily received the right proportion of the rally’s content and agenda. This was especially important given the stark reality that the broad language in the proposed constitutional amendment could eventually lead to the elimination of Arizona’s common-sense abortion restrictions and regulations, effectively allowing for legalized abortions through all nine months.
As the election cycle unfolds in 2024, heavy press coverage on this subject matter is understandable.
Unfortunately, most of the media limited their coverage to this aspect of the event, organized locally by the Arizona Life Coalition. This narrow lens, which seems intentional, failed to show the wide range of engagement from nonpolitical people and organizations. People from all regions of the state, from every walk of life, showed up to advocate for life. More than 30 exhibitors were present, including abortion healing groups, churches, schools, pregnancy help centers, medical, adoption, and foster care organizations.
General media bias through exclusion was evident, with virtually no mention of the other powerful speakers, including former nurse Kim Owens, whose beliefs were transformed by the profound realization of the humanity of an unborn child during an abortion procedure. Her testimony, along with that of Life Choices Women’s Clinic director, Sheila Riely, and her client, holding her beautiful baby in her arms, told the story of how she changed her mind and gave birth instead of aborting. Finally, Pastor Mike Goodwin from Emanuel Baptist Church in Tucson, encouraged compassion and forgiveness as perhaps the better way to change more hearts and minds about abortion, underscoring the rally’s deeper spiritual and moral dimensions.
We rallied and marched for life last Friday to confront the lies of abortion with truth. It’s a lie that elective abortion is women’s healthcare. It’s deceptive to define abortion as a medical procedure that terminates a pregnancy.
The truth is, “terminating a pregnancy” is just a euphemism for the reality that abortion intentionally destroys the innocent life of a helpless unborn baby.
The truth is abortion is the most blatant human rights violation in the history of mankind. In the last year, there were 11,530 abortions in Arizona as reported by the Arizona Department of Health Services. That’s an average of 221 innocent and defenseless babies killed by abortion every week in Arizona.
This deeply saddens me, but it was encouraging to see children, young adults, and seniors rally. I met one passionate woman who is 91 years old. What’s more, giving me great hope was the huge turnout of homeschool kids, local high schoolers, and groups from Grand Canyon University and Arizona Christian University, all marching for life. There were even students who wrote essays, created posters, and made pro-life videos for a contest sponsored by the Arizona Life Coalition. All these committed young pro-lifers make up generations of a society that will someday absolutely respect and protect the rights of ALL HUMAN BEINGS, born and unborn.
The press and general media’s skewed representation of the pro-life movement cannot diminish the power of personal resolve and the collective spirit that drives our cause. We stand on a foundation of science, reason, morality, and faith. So, it is imperative that we elevate the conversation beyond political divisions. Don’t be swayed by shallow narratives but instead, contemplate the truth, that indeed, everyone deserves a birthday.
Garrett Riley is the executive director of the Arizona Life Coalition, with a mission of inspiring pro-life choices through charity, education, and unifying collaboration.
A retired educator once told me, “Parents don’t have rights, they have responsibilities.” Considering this viewpoint alongside the comment below, I can’t find any context in which these statements are appropriate.
In the same vein, former state Governor Terry McAuliffe (D-VA) said, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what to teach.” Not to mention, the National School Board Association incited FBI Director Merrick Garland to declare war against parents.
In light of all the anti-parental rights sentiments infecting our education system, I declare:
Children are an inheritance, a reward, and a gift from God (Ps. 127:3). Therefore, they belong to their parents/guardians, not government employees. If your beliefs run contrary to this truth, then the following commentary was written with you in mind.
Two incidents lead to my discussion on parental rights in education. The first involves backlash I received after posting this flier in a parent group on social media:
Group members were appalled that I used the page to inform parents of their right to choose how their children are educated. One said, “I wonder what teachers would think?” Another member incoherently stated that teachers were being “used as political pons.” (I think she meant “pawns,” but we’ll blame public education for the error). The elementary shoving match in the comment section revealed that my primary opponent was, in fact, a teacher.
I was pitifully accused of being a “political operative” and called out for not focusing on strengthening relationships in the district. Never mind that I’m one of five people willing to attend board meetings. I’m also willing to find common ground with opposing leaders to improve academic success and student safety.
Our Parental Bill of Rights is one radical majority vote away from destruction. So, if giving parents options to circumvent government schools triggers you, then you’re part of the problem.
The second incident occurred on January 25, 2024, when teacher and Peoria Education Association (PEA) President, Trina Berg, requested public comments be moved to the end of the board meeting. Berg stated:
“My request is that we consider, and you have a discussion, and vote on moving public comments to the end of the board meeting. The reason why is because we have business we have to do. And I would appreciate it if we actually came in and did our business first … People still have the ability to speak on whatever they want, but it’s when business is done.”
Wouldn’t you know that public comments were relocated from position 5.1 to position 9.1 at the February 8 board meeting. Peoria Unified School District (PUSD) Board President Rebecca Proudfit — appointed by the financially compromised Maricopa County Superintendent Steve Watson — led the charge in compliance with Berg’s request.
When confronted about moving the comments, Proudfit claimed some teachers were uncomfortable with the atmosphere at PUSD board meetings. She also said the results of a survey — somehow received by educators but missed by parents — favored changing the meeting format. When pressed further about the timing of her decision, Proudfit said, “[Berg] did email me afterwards to say thank you … But I swear I wouldn’t do anything like that just because someone asked me to do it.”
Bear in mind, this is the same Trina Berg who staged an illegal sick out in defiance of the board’s decision to resume in-person learning after the 2020 winter break. District emails reveal that Berg and her co-conspirator, PEA Treasurer Jessica Batty (also a teacher), planned the union-backed catastrophe. At one point, Berg wrote, “[W]e are trying to show that this decision was especially dumb for retention.”
Berg’s shenanigans — which resulted in the closure of 13 schools — disrupted academic progress and left parents without childcare. So, why wasn’t this activist, posing as a teacher, fired?
The statement, “Teachers are not the primary stakeholders in public education,” is true contractually and financially. This is why teachers’ unions exist. Of course, educators typically have children, own property, and pay taxes in their district. But from a business standpoint, certified staff members do not hold revenue-generating positions — they are paid to provide a community service. For clarification: parents (and constituents) are patrons, students are beneficiaries, teachers are public servants.
Without parents and students, teachers wouldn’t have jobs.
When it comes to directing a child’s education, the law clearly identifies parents as the experts. And whether we consider parents “good” or “bad,” their rights are protected under the United States Constitution. The place of a teacher is to transfer knowledge, not propaganda, and foster an environment that’s conducive to learning, not excessive self-expression.
Communist dictator Vladimir Lenin — the man history deems responsible for the death of 10 million people — is credited with saying, “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.” This is the ideological framework of someone who aims to incite rebellion and break family bonds. I implore leftist educators to reject radical approaches to instruction, abandon hypercritical theories, and, instead, work to form an alliance with parents/guardians.
Finally, I commend sensible and honorable educators who practice transparency, partner with families, and build strong support networks for their students. You are the teachers we can entrust with our youth. Now more than ever, your skills and compassion are needed to shape young minds for the betterment of society and secure the future of our nation.
Tiffany Benson is the Founder of Restore Parental Rights in Education, a grassroots advocate for families, educators, and school board members. For nearly two decades, Tiffany’s creative writing pursuits have surpassed most interests as she continues to contribute to her blog Bigviewsmallwindow.com. She encourages everyday citizens to take an active role in defending and preserving American values for future generations.
For the past three years, the people of Arizona have been forced to deal with the fallout of a struggling economy, rising prices, and an inflation rate that, at one point, was the highest in the country. With this in mind, Republicans got to work, delivering the largest tax cut in state history and following that up with a budget that included tax rebates for Arizona families.
But Governor Katie Hobbs clearly has much different priorities when it comes to your hard-earned money. True to her 10-year history of pulverizing Arizona taxpayers, Hobbs announced during her State of the State address in January her desire to—you guessed it—massively grow the size of state government. And judging by the executive staff hiring spree that Hobbs is on as governor, it’s clear that this isn’t just empty rhetoric…
Legislative Republicans in Arizona are advancing a bill to terminate your right to vote…well at least from the “comfort of your kitchen table,” according to Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts. Arizona’s beleaguered voters would instead have to “schlep down” to actual polling places.
But wait – it gets worse! The bill also eliminates the ability to cast your vote anywhere you choose, or it won’t count. Of course, in the real world you would’ve been repeatedly notified of your polling station, and if you went to the wrong one anyway, poll workers would helpfully direct you to the correct one.
Why are Democrats motivated to concoct these exaggerated arguments against in-person voting, which has always worked just fine for Americans? It began in the age of COVID when, to prevent unnecessary mingling, voting in-person was discouraged. Voters instead were sent a ballot which they could return at their leisure
Then, magic happened. Suddenly, Democrats became more likely to win. Close elections turned blue at the last minute, sometimes even after the official account was completed. Underdog candidates, almost always Democrats, begin to eke out victories.
In-person voting came to be depicted as an onerous infringement on our fictitious right to convenience, much more difficult than a trip to the grocery store or a doctor’s office. Exceptions were readily granted for the elderly, infirm, or geographically unavailable. Still, requiring the able-bodied to vote in-person was nothing more than voter suppression, barely more tolerable than Jim Crow.
What difference does it make where you vote? Most Americans don’t realize elections must be rigorously protected from fraud. The election process to a political grifter is like a bank to a thief. Within lies wealth and influence if you can crack it. Every election produces mountains of anecdotal evidence of widespread fraud, although unfortunately no official statistics are kept.
Moreover, all this activity occurs in a system with no systematic method for detecting fraud. When it is sought, the results can be shocking. The multiple irregularities found too late in the 2005 Rossi/Gregoire gubernatorial election in Washington and the ineligible votes cast in Al Franken’s 2010 senatorial election in both cases would have been more than enough to change the outcome.
American elections in the last century have been designed to ensure security of the ballot. On election day, registered voters not claiming a hardship exemption present themselves to a local polling place with a signed photo ID. They are physically protected from inappropriate influence both inside and outside the polling booth. They would drop their completed ballot into a secured receptacle, the contents of which would be delivered to local election officers under strict chain-of-evidence protocols.
With bulk-mail voting, all the precautions vanish. Millions of unsolicited ballots are mailed to poorly maintained lists of voters, many of whom have moved or don’t exist. Nobody knows or can know what happens to the ballots until they are returned by mail. The notably unreliable signature verification process is the lone fraud protection.
Whether the ballot actually reached the intended recipient, who actually filled out the ballot, and whether any illegal aid was supplied to the voter are all categorical unknowns.
Still think bulk-mail voting is basically reliable? Read on.
A Rasmussen poll of 1,085 voters after the 2020 election revealed that fully 21% admitted to filling out a ballot on behalf of another voter. Also,17% said they voted in a state where they were not a permanent resident, and another 17% said they signed a ballot for someone else. Remember, too, the 2020 election was touted as our “most secure of all time,” and these survey numbers were obtained directly from voters who were unlikely to over-report themselves.
Up to 80% of Americans doubt our elections are secure. Some are conspiracy kooks fighting the wrong battle at the wrong time. But many others have justifiable concerns about a system increasingly dependent on bulk-mail voting.
Deep doubts about election validity are not healthy in a democracy. Although bulk-mail voting is popular, convenience-loving Americans should rethink their choice. Casting your ballot in person is a small price to pay for ensuring our republic.
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.
Editor’s Note: This column was co-authored by Dean Riesen and Steve Twist.
As we are now in high political season, we propose a thought experiment before too many decisions are frozen in amber too early on. For Republicans and Independents, and even Democrats whose fond memories of the party run back to the ideals of the 1960s: How extreme is it to support a strengthened and secured U.S. border to keep dangerous people and products from flowing into the country?
A few more questions to satisfy the experiment: How ideal would it be for the United States to be energy independent? Who among any of us does not want to see our homeless population housed, free of addiction, and treated of their mental health issues? Who among us does not think that for the $900 billion Americans spend on elementary and secondary education, our scores and achievement levels should be much higher? Who here thinks the drug poisoning problem—at historically record highs—cannot be addressed and reversed? Who among us thinks our deficits and government spending priorities are keeping us on the track of economic prosperity and financial health?
Nearly any candidate that shares the obvious answers to the foregoing questions would be the kind of candidate nearly every Republican, Independent, and commonsense Democrat would take seriously and support. Especially against someone who answers each of those questions wrongly.
Now make the candidate who got the answers right a possible United States Senator in a nearly evenly divided United States Senate where the right answers to those questions have been frustrated and opposed by the modern Democratic Party.
The candidate who gets the answers to the commonsense questions above right is Kari Lake. While we did not support her in the primary in 2022, we have zero problem supporting her for the Senate seat she is running for today, here, in Arizona.
For those who disagree with some of her previous quips and misstatements, we urge thinking about any candidate who never uttered misstatements or mistaken views here and there. That candidate does not exist.
But, what you will find in Kari Lake is someone running hard against a representative and supporter of the values of today’s Democratic Party.
And that party has a Governor in Arizona that has called Republicans neo-Nazis. It is a party that turns a blind eye and deaf ear toward rioting and elevated to Vice President someone who encouraged such rioting and helped bail out the rioters. It is a party that nominates and defends Justices to the Supreme Court who will not answer the question “What is a woman?” It is a party that supports efforts to encourage children to physically change their biological sex and supports concealing those efforts from their parents.
Today’s Democratic Party is a party that believes 1776 was not our founding date and a party that believes people should be judged for the most sublime positions, privileges, and immunities based on their most crude characteristics, like their race, rather than their most refined and human characteristics, like their brains and their morality.
It is a party that supports the legalization of dangerous drugs and a party that thinks it just fine to teach 5-year-olds age-inappropriate lessons and behaviors. It is a party that believes it OK for men to compete in women’s sports and for men to enter and use women’s bathrooms and showers and locker rooms at every age.
Today’s Democratic Party is a party that shoveled hundreds of billions of dollars to the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world while it thinks we should create another official carbon copy of Iran or Syria in the Middle East, while, at the same time, stripping the rights and power of the United States’ greatest ally in the Middle East.
Today’s Democratic Party is a party that wants to secure other nations’ borders with weapons and taxpayer dollars but does not want to protect its own border. It is a party that wants to strip First and Second Amendment rights from law-abiding Americans but wants to elevate the rights of violent criminals above those of their victims.
Finally, as we view possible scenarios that could include a Democrat in the White House, a small Democrat majority in the House of Representatives, and a Senator Ruben Gallego as part of a one-seat majority in the Senate, the following could be enacted within six months: 1) Elimination of the filibuster, 2) Appointment to the Supreme Court of four left-wing Justices, 3) Admission of Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. as states, giving the Democrats a lock on the U.S. Senate with four additional Democrat senators, and, 4) An open U. S. border with unlimited immigration, and citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. This platform is what is “extreme,” by any definition.
We can rest on our own self-important codes of personal distaste for a candidate that stands athwart all this and abstain supporting her, or we can get over statements made in the past that, to borrow from Thomas Jefferson, “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg,” and get serious about defeating a much greater threat than one to our own moral superiorities; the greatest of threats to the greatest of nations. Ours. If one cares about something greater than their own self-interest, and if that “something” is this country, we ask you to support Kari Lake, as we are. Her opponent, after all, answers wrongly all the questions we raise above and supports the nightmare agenda we raise here. A vote against Kari Lake, just as a decision not to vote for or support her, is a vote for all that. Those who take their Republican Party, and this country, seriously, cannot allow that to happen.
