On July 3rd, the Arizona Abortion Access Campaign submitted petitions with the aim of amending the Arizona State Constitution to permit abortions up until the moment of birth. This chilling proposal would prevent the state from intervening in abortions “after fetal viability,” based on the “judgment” of a “healthcare professional.” Since the petition campaign began last September, it has been shrouded in controversy and deceit, while they attempted to gather 383,923 signatures to place this evil amendment on Arizona’s ballot this November.
As someone who wholeheartedly believes in the sanctity of life, I felt it was critical to be present as the submission process began. The first thing I witnessed was a truck carrying 240 boxes being unloaded and rolled into the Secretary of State’s office. The irony of police dogs sniffing the truck for bombs was not lost on me—considering the horrifying reality that the very proponents of this amendment are advocating for painful late-term abortions.
Over the past week, I closely monitored the Secretary of State’s meticulous process of unstapling, scanning, and reviewing the petitions. A 5% sample will then be sent to the county recorder’s office in each county to verify the authenticity of the signatures.
But let’s not be fooled. The Arizona Abortion Access Campaign is a masterclass in deception. During my time observing the unpacking of boxes, I was astounded to see several boxes unsealed only to reveal that they were completely empty. Not a single petition was inside!
This grotesque stunt at the Capitol, performed in front of the media, was a blatant act of deceit—an attempt to manipulate the public into believing they had garnered overwhelming support. The reality is far more sinister. The 240 boxes quickly shrank to fewer than 70 boxes once the cameras were turned off, contradicting their claim of having amassed “800,000 signatures.”
But it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. The Arizona Abortion Access Campaign’s facade of overwhelming support has always been nothing but a dangerous illusion. And their deceitful tactics reveal the sad reality of a campaign more focused on manipulation than genuine advocacy. But I would expect nothing less from a group determined to kill babies up until the moment of birth in a disturbing assault on the most vulnerable among us.
Now, we all have a duty to fight against this. And Arizona Right to Life is leading the charge to stop this ballot measure.
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
As an 18-year-old student graduating from Arizona State University this May, I constantly think about what is next. Many people in Gen-Z are often told, “After school, you need to find a good paying job” or “You should go to graduate school.” But I find it sad that there are so few people telling Gen-Z to “raise a young family and provide for them any way that you can.”
Generation Z has the moniker of being the social media generation. Because of that, many tend to think that the majority of my generation is made up of a bunch of degenerates. But the reality is quite the opposite.
Generation Z has a very high percentage of individuals who want to enhance their lives by placing family at the center. Vice Media Group reported, “73% [of Gen-Z] say that becoming a parent enhances who you already are as a person.” This is significant because it shows that Gen-Z recognizes the inherent value of starting and sustaining a family.
The birth rate in America has been declining for some time now, and births out of wedlock are at an all-time high. Many often wonder what has gone wrong in America for this to happen. The truth is that the deconstruction of the nuclear family unit and a growing lack of faith have played a significant role. But despite all this, there is optimism. Between 2010 and 2020, births out of wedlock did not increase for the first time since the 1930s. Between 2020 and 2030, there are reasonable projections that this number will decrease for the first time. This can be attributed to Generation Z starting families and reverting to traditional values.
This brings me to the 2024 election. There is so much on the line for younger voters this November, and many of them will vote for candidates who will focus on the economy and homeland security. These hot-button issues directly affect the ability and environment to have a family. Many do not buy the claim that “their vote doesn’t count” because they have seen how the ability to start and keep a family has been much more difficult under the Biden administration’s policies.
Another important issue for Gen-Z is the value of faith in family life, and recent research backs this up, showing a resurgence in religious faith among Gen-Z. After the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health issues were at an all-time high, especially within my generation, and the return to normal life after crippling lockdown policies was extremely difficult for many. Due to this, Gen-Z began to wake up to faith and become believers. Of course, this is not a new concept. After the Black Death that crippled Europe, many people thought of religion in new ways, which eventually led to Protestantism and other forms of Christianity. Before COVID-19, faith started to decline in the United States, and many people were leaving it for atheism. But now that the pandemic is over and we move into the mid-2020s, we may be in the early stages of a religious revival that could prove to be similar to medieval Europe.
Generation Z has been shaped by a unique time period. We’ve seen family and religious values fall to dramatically low levels, and we’re starting to see what that can do to a society. When Rome and Greece abandoned these values, their empires fell into ruin. Now, Generation Z has the opportunity to keep us from this same fate by resurrecting this country to focus on family and faith once again.
Carson Carpenter is an Arizona State University student majoring in Political Science. He is the President of The College Republicans at ASU and is the National Committeeman to Arizona for The College Republicans of America. He has also interned for Reps. Gosar and Crane.
The latest official employment report finds once again that the federal government and state-and-local government hiring spree is still in full gear. Over the past year health care and government hiring has outpaced every private sector industry.
So, even though there are a lot more government workers, good luck finding them or getting them on the phone.
This is because so few of them are actually physically on the job.
What is happening in the federal government (“Club Fed”) these days borders on the absurd — or should I say the obscene. A recent survey by Federal News Network of federal workers finds only 6% are working full time in the office. Thirty percent are full time remote. Office buildings in Washington have become city-block long zombies. Especially on Fridays.
While exact comparisons between public and private employees are tricky and inexact, best estimates are that in 2023 roughly 30% of private workers were working from home or remotely either some or all of the time. In the private sector, the percentage of employees working from home has actually declined from about 50% during Covid (2020).
This means that federal employees are three times more likely to be working remotely either some or all of the time.
I am all for employees working remotely a few days a week and this is likely to become more common in the information and digital age. I do that myself.
But one has to wonder how many of these workers are really necessary. And what are the chances that these remote government workers who can almost never get fired for bad performance are putting in an honest day’s work. My suspicion is very few.
The irony is that three years ago the federal government issued an order for federal employees to return to work post-Covid. Many thousands have blatantly ignored the order.
Remember, government workers have some of the cushiest and least stressful jobs on the planet. And they get paid roughly 30 to 40% more than comparably skilled private workers — when taking account exorbitant benefits.
Here is my solution. Uncle Sam is losing almost $2 trillion a year. Stop hiring new people. Every federal agency including the biggest bureaucracy in the world — the Pentagon — should impose a hiring freeze — except for extraordinary circumstances — until the budget is balanced. Then impose a 30% across the board reduction in force (RIF).
Finally, if the government needs more revenues, start by selling federal buildings that are less than one-half occupied. Many buildings are less than 20 percent occupied.
Former President Donald Trump’s most popular rallying cry in 2016 was to “drain the swamp.” But today the swamp is deeper than ever and the deep state swamp creatures are more numerous than ever after four years of the Biden-Kamala administration. If Trump wins, he and Republicans should get draining.
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and a co-founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity.
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.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
