The Iranian mullahs must be thrilled at the progress they are making on obtaining nuclear capability. It represents the realization of their millennia-old ambition to turn the world into an Islamic caliphate. The world should be thoroughly alarmed.
The West seemingly insists on not paying much attention, but observant Muslims, which is most of them, make no bones about it. It is a tenet of the faith that eventually all non-Muslims will convert, die, or live in subjugation to Muslims. It is the duty of all faithful Muslims to devote their life to jihad, i.e. striving to bring about that day when sharia law rules the world.
Islam’s lack of success so far is mostly because they lack the infrastructure necessary to support such a sustained, massive effort. Like the Soviet communists, their ideology creates the economic conditions which make it difficult to advance their cause. The mullahs blame us, chanting “Death to America” and meaning it.
Until now, nations that have attained nuclear capability, starting with the United States, have at least to some degree recognized the awesome responsibility of having weapons so massively destructive that their deployment could set off a conflagration ending civilization as we know it. The greatest threat ever may be that fanatical Muslims, who have no respect for human life or even their own people, and who despise the values of Western civilization, will obtain nuclear capability.
So, faced with such obvious mortal danger, America’s leaders are doing everything they can to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, right? Almost unbelievably, President Biden is still working to relax enforcement of sanctions and to provide enabling funds to Iran.
This glaring error goes back to 2015 and Barack Obama’s belief that a policy of appeasement, rather than confrontation, was the best way to make an ally of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. For Obama and his advisors, negotiating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the “nuclear deal”) was also the way to right our past injustices to Iran.
“I do think you have to have the capacity to put yourself occasionally in their shoes,” Obama said, always willing to stick up for Muslims while deeming America just another nation with nothing especially remarkable about it.
Obama’s plan to produce an equilibrium of forces and thus stability in the Middle East by increasing Iran’s access to resources and its standing in the Middle East was an unqualified failure. Lifting sanctions, terminating Justice Department operations against Iran, and requiring the Defense Department to work cooperatively with a sworn enemy craving nuclear capability predictably produced the opposite – more terrorism, more nuclear development, and more hostility to the U.S.
Still, the American Left offered yet more support for Iran despite the fact that under the nuclear deal we moved ever closer to facing a belligerent, nuclear armed, and irrational enemy. Reversing Trump was all that mattered.
In 2022, Iran faced severe internal disruption due to its brutal treatment of women under sharia law. But instead of supporting the uprising or even letting it play out, the White House offered sanctions relief to prop up Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and slipped a note to Iran’s government to assure them we still supported the nuclear deal.
In 2023, the Obama/Biden team stubbornly continued to do about everything possible to subsidize Iran’s nuclear ambitions including:
releasing $20 billion from the International Monetary Fund.
using a sanctions waiver to allow Iran to move $10 billion out of Iraq.
ending sanctions on oil sales which produce $30 million of annual revenue for Iran.
releasing $6 billion in oil revenue from South Korea.
Even the October 7 massacre and over 100 continued attacks on American military installations didn’t stop Biden from allowing the UN missile embargo on Iran to expire. Plus, just to show there were no hard feelings apparently about attacking our ships in the Red Sea, we granted a waiver to allow Iran to access $10 billion more from Iraq.
Why do our leaders insist on enabling Iran’s nuclear dreams and subsidizing terror? Do they honestly believe we can achieve peace through weakness?
This isn’t partisan bickering. Our bumbler-in-chief has put America in a very dangerous position.
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.
In whatever field you work for, can you imagine doing your job with one hand tied behind your back? What about both hands tied behind your back? Well, for the Phoenix Police Department this is no longer an “imagination,” this is their reality.
For the past 2 years, the Department of Justice has been investigating the Phoenix PD on the basis of allegations against the department regarding use of force, retaliation to protestors, and mistreating the homeless. For 2 years the Phoenix PD has been fully compliant with their investigation as stated by the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association in an open letter to Mayor Kate Gallego;“Because the city and it’s police department have nothing to hide, you have cooperated with every aspect of the DOJ’s investigation thus far – rightly so, and with our full support.”
However, the Phoenix PD, in that same open letter, conveyed their dismay to Mayor Gallego; “I write to you today on behalf of PLEA, United Phoenix Firefighters Local 493, AFSCME 2384, AFSCME 2960, ASPTEA and neighborhood groups Operation Blue Ribbon, Violence Impact Coalition, and Phoenix Mid-Century Modern Neighborhood Association to express our concerns about the direction of the DOJ investigation and its implications for the future of the City of Phoenix.”The Department of Justice, after concluding their “investigation,” has recommended—as they always seem to do—a consent decree go in effect for the Phoenix PD.
Now, why is this such a bad thing? Why are people against this? Here are a few of the reasons.
At What Cost
Let’s start with the most obvious reason taxpayers and residents of Phoenix oppose this. The financial burden on the City of Phoenix would be astronomical, costing the city $10 million alone for the court ordered monitor required by the consent decree. The rest of the cost widely depends on the length a consent decree is in effect for, but the Seattle PD, which has a consent decree, has spent $100 million so far. And that number continues to climb as the consent decree remains in place. I am sure you can see why taxpayers would be against this.
“I’m From the Government, and I’m Here to Help”
If the cost alone isn’t enough to sway you, then let’s look back on Ronald Reagan’s famous quote that the “nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’” This is exactly what is going on in Phoenix. There really is no reason that someone from another state or the federal government should be dictating or instructing officers within the Phoenix PD. This takes away our state and local sovereignty. While the Phoenix PD is not perfect, they have taken actions and steps to improve and make policy and training changes when necessary. For the DOJ to come in and overreach in such a way, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, is grossly inappropriate.
The CRIME, Need More Be Said?
If you look at cities that have a consent decree in place, violent crime has skyrocketed! In a statement, about a survey of officers within the Phoenix PD, the President of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association said, “In [the survey], we asked what the members felt would happen to crime if a consent decree was implemented. 93.73% said crime would rise either somewhat or substantially. That is in line with what we have seen across the country.”In that same survey, officers were asked how likely they would be to retire if a consent decree were to go in effect for Phoenix PD. The President of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association shared the results, saying, “Here in Phoenix, we are approximately 600 short of the max staffing of 3,125. In a recent survey, PLEA asked members how likely they would be to retire or resign if a consent decree was implemented in Phoenix. 12.57% responded that they would definitely retire or resign, while another 30.26% said they would strongly consider retiring or resigning. 42.87% is a concerning number!” Phoenix already has rising crime rates. We cannot afford to lose more officers. We need to gain more!
This Affects Us ALL
If you don’t live in Phoenix, why should you care? Phoenix is the 5th largest police department in the U.S. If the DOJ can do this to Phoenix, what will stop them from coming to Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale, or other cities in the valley? Not only that, but if crime rates soar in Phoenix, that will certainly flow into neighboring cities. As the residency rates rise in Arizona, crime is bound to rise too, but so far Arizona has remained a decently safe state to live. However, if this consent decree goes in effect, there’s no telling how bad it could get.
Speed, Speed, Speed
After a slow and drawn-out investigation, speed seems to be the name of the game for the DOJ all of a sudden. After the DOJ concluded its two-year investigation, it brought its recommendation to the city council and for a decision within 48 hours. Many council members were frustrated and curious as to why an outside entity came into their city and demanded action in 48 hours when they themselves got 2 years to do their investigation. As Phoenix Councilwoman Ann O’Brien said, “Phoenix has been transparent and collaborative, now it’s time for the DOJ to do the same.”
This Is Nonpartisan
This is a non-partisan issue that affects all Arizonans, and we need you in this fight. Even the Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone, a Democrat, has announced his resignation because of the lack of ability to run his office due to this consent decree. That’s why I encourage everyone in our state to go to community forums hosted by the Phoenix PD and voice your concerns. The future of our state may depend on it.
Joseph Yang is a young community leader and grassroots activist. He currently runs a community organization and serves on the Chandler Police Review Panel. Joseph is the Founder of the East Valley Young Republicans and current assistant state advisor for the TeenAge Republicans. He hosts a show called “The Conservative Seoul Show” that you can find here.
If any business owner saw 450% growth in one of the company’s products or programs during a 15-month period, they would be ecstatic. And it’s safe to say that whatever that program was doing must be working. But for Governor Katie Hobbs and her allies in the teachers’ unions, who have never been known for their math skills, it’s a completely different story when it comes to the ESA program.
Back in July 2022, when then-Governor Doug Ducey signed universal school choice expansion into Arizona law, 13,400 students were enrolled in the ESA program. That number has now grown—as of January 16, 2024—to an astounding 73,415 students—a near 450% growth. Clearly, the program is in high demand, and it is definitely working. But after signing the Republican budget bill last year, without any cap or restrictions on ESAs, Hobbs is now trying to push a barrage of regulations that would effectively dismantle the popular program…
With the New Year upon us, the freedom to freelance will surely be under attack in 2024 just as it has been throughout the Biden reign on a variety of fronts—be it the impending regulatory restrictions soon to be imposed by the U.S. Department of Labor, or prospective bills seeking to limit independent contracting in states like Minnesota and Michigan.
Meanwhile, the ongoing destruction of the independent workforce in California is still unfolding in real-time, thanks to the disastrous AB5 law enacted in 2020, a law so restrictive that it has put hundreds of thousands of Californians out of business across a vast swath of professions.
Proponents of these onerous labor laws have seized on a new tactic to hijack the “flexibility” argument from those of us who advocate for self-employment. They assume that flexibility is our sole reason for desiring freelance careers—whether it’s a single mom needing to stay at home with the kids, or a person with a chronic illness unable to participate in the traditional workplace, to name a few.
While flexibility is just one factor that makes independent contracting appealing, it’s not the “be-all-end-all” for why millions of Americans choose to be in business for themselves. The anti-freelancer forces cite current work trends that began during the pandemic when employees discovered the convenience of at-home work arrangements, equating this to flexibility. But these remote-work arrangements are not the same as being your own boss. Not by a long shot.
For freelance journalist JoBeth McDaniel, the ability to pick and choose clients is imperative, along with being able to charge top rates per project. Also important: not having to be beholden to a single employer or difficult boss.
“I choose self-employment in part due to harassment I endured as a low-level employee in my 20s,” said Daniel. “When you’re a small business, it’s a simple matter to replace one bad client with nine or more others wanting to work with you.”
Another benefit of being your own boss is the opportunity to avoid workplace discrimination, particularly for seniors like audio-visual tech Roger Zeilinski, who lost his career in California due to AB5. “No one wants to hire a senior like me as a full- or part-timer because of the added costs for healthcare, liability, and workers’ comp,” he said.
With ageism rampant in corporate America, professionals in their 50s, 60s, and 70s like Roger find themselves completely shut out of the job market in favor of younger workers. With self-employment, however, age is often not a factor. Certified Medical Transcriptionist Debbie Gosselin lets her work speak for itself: “In most instances,” she said, “my clients don’t even know my age because is irrelevant.”
For writers, journalists, cartoonists, and graphic designers, independent contracting allows an individual to retain intellectual property rights. Freelance writer/photographer Kristina Anderson posed this scenario: “Imagine a newspaper columnist wanting to compile her columns into a published book, or a still photographer who desires to sell their images to another outlet. If I were an employee, those options are off the table, as the copyright belongs to the publisher and not the original creator.”
For those who file Schedule C on their federal tax returns, deducting expenses is crucial, especially if expensive equipment is required in a particular field such as independent filmmaking. Prior to AB5, film producer Dan Cheatham could write off his office costs, vehicle usage, fuel, software, hardware, equipment, healthcare, and self-advertising. “AB5 is poison for the self-employed in California unless we are willing to just volunteer our services and turn this into art for art’s sake,” he said.
Finally, the opportunity to hone one’s craft is inherent in the freedom to freelance. Whether it’s a videographer working with different clients in different settings, a writer growing their skill sets to include photography and web design, or a wedding vendor expanding her offerings, the chance to try on different hats is one of many essential attributes of being self-employed.
According to Gail Gordon, executive director of Numi Opera in Los Angeles, an aspiring opera singer can perform as a freelancer in a mid-tier opera company in hopes of someday joining a major opera house. “Freelancing opens up new horizons and new career opportunities for up-and-coming artists,” she said. “Laws like AB5 take that all away.”
This New Year, the opportunity to freelance will be more essential than ever, be it a full-time career or a side hustle to supplement one’s income. Here’s to hoping the Biden administration will cease and desist its continued assault on legitimate, thriving independent contractors just to appease the selfish wish list of organized labor.
Karen Anderson is a contributor to the Daily Caller News Foundation, a visiting fellow at Independent Women’s Forum (iwf.org), and the founder of Freelancers Against AB5.
When you’re hired to do a job, it stands to reason that you should actually do the job you’ve been hired to do. Think about it. If a company hired you to be a writer, and you never did any writing for the company, you probably wouldn’t keep your job too long. That is, of course, unless you work for the government.
For quite some time now, federal, state, and local governments across the country—including right here in Arizona—have been engaging in the practice of “release time.” If you’re unfamiliar with this term, it means that certain people are hired to do a specific job for the government, but instead of doing that job, they are “released” to work full-time for their union. This could be someone like a teacher, for example, who instead of teaching students, spends all his or her time doing work for the teachers’ union. But here’s the thing, even though these employees don’t actually work for the government, they still get a paycheck from the government—all funded by your tax dollars.
Is this practice unfair? Yes. Is it unconstitutional? Absolutely.
That’s why the Goldwater Institute has been challenging this practice in our state in a case that has made its way to the Arizona Supreme Court…
Last fall a television news host advised viewers to “fasten their seat belts” because they were now in the exciting final countdown to the presidential election – which was at that point fifteen months in the future!
Strange as it once would have seemed, the comment actually made some sense because the news cycle had been filled for three years with daily analysis of the latest poll results and speculation from the campaign trail. Somehow, we have bumbled our way into extraordinarily long election seasons.
Endless campaigns have not evolved in response to public demands or the efforts of good government reformers. On the contrary, a majority of Americans report feeling fatigued and believe that presidential campaigns run too long.
It wasn’t always this way, of course. Presidential candidates were originally chosen by Congress. By the mid-19th century, national parties had formed, and candidates were selected in smoke-filled rooms at their conventions. After WWII, presidential primaries emerged as a way for rank-and-file party members to participate in the selection process.
By 1960, there were 16 state primaries. John F. Kennedy was nominated when his strong showing in West Virginia convinced Democrats a Catholic could be a viable candidate. After Democrats changed the rules following the contentious 1968 convention, even more states began conducting primaries.
Each new reform had the effect of lengthening the campaign season. In 1976, Jimmy Carter, the obscure governor of Georgia, won the nomination by getting a jump on the competition in the January Iowa caucuses. Ambitious politicians ever since have taken note.
In the late 20th century, the race among states to bolster their influence by holding earlier primaries was on. By 2008, four-fifths of the states were conducting their primaries by March.
Campaigns begin long before the primaries. Active campaign staffs for the 2024 election by now have been operating for years. In the past, early in the election year was often the time candidates declared. This year, the train has left the station already. Deadlines for many primaries have passed. It would take a Herculean effort to jumpstart a campaign at this point.
Some commentators applaud the democratization of the candidate selection process. But super long campaigns have several unfortunate consequences.
Financing a long campaign is a money draining effort that favors deep pockets. Most candidates are unable to self-fund, so they are obliged to spend immense amounts of time and do lots of promising to raise the necessary millions.
Voters may complain about campaign length, but the media are fine with it. Horse race stories are easy to write and sell well because they are simple to understand and naturally involve human interest as the candidates become known to voters.
Meanwhile, stories which are consequential for all Americans, like the deliberations of the Federal Reserve Board, the growing bellicosity of America’s existential enemies, or the details of energy policy get scant attention.
Campaigns affect governance too. It’s well known that the more challenging, risky issues are harder to tackle in an election year. When every year is in effect an election year, then it’s never the right time to do the heavy lifting.
Forgiving student debt and paying outrageous, unwise sums for hostage ransoms, especially for celebrities, is catnip for weak, vote-seeking politicians. On the other hand, anything that reeks of fiscal restraint or sacrifice for the future public good is studiously ignored. Entitlement reform is out of the question.
Campaigns could theoretically be defended for allowing voters to more thoroughly vet the candidates and so make better-informed decisions. But it doesn’t seem to work that way. We have elected mostly mediocrities in the last half century. The process this cycle seems to be producing is the most incompetent, dishonest, and disliked candidates in memory. We can do better.
Other modern democracies don’t subject themselves to such an exhausting ordeal. Elections in Canada, the UK, and Australia, all admittedly parliamentary systems, are legally limited to about six weeks. Nobody is clamoring for longer elections in these countries.
America has short presidential terms and long election seasons. As inertia and populism continue to dog our politics and the problems pile up, maybe we also should consider limiting our costly, dysfunctional campaigns.
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.
