A DOJ Takeover Of The Phoenix Police Department Would Be Catastrophic

A DOJ Takeover Of The Phoenix Police Department Would Be Catastrophic

By Joseph Yang |

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.

Joe Biden And Gavin Newsom Go To War With Freelancers For Their Big Labor Buddies

Joe Biden And Gavin Newsom Go To War With Freelancers For Their Big Labor Buddies

By Karen Anderson |

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.

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

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.

The Arizona Supreme Court Should Strike Down Taxpayer-Funded Union Release Time

The Arizona Supreme Court Should Strike Down Taxpayer-Funded Union Release Time

By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |

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…

>>> CONTINUE READING >>> 

America’s Campaigns Are Costing More And Producing Worse Results Than Ever

America’s Campaigns Are Costing More And Producing Worse Results Than Ever

By Dr. Thomas Patterson |

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.

The Arizona Republic’s Hit Piece Against Me Pushed Transgenderism In K-12 Education

The Arizona Republic’s Hit Piece Against Me Pushed Transgenderism In K-12 Education

By Tiffany Benson |

Residents in Arizona public school districts are engaged in a spiritual and moral battle. Some are determined to advance an insidious LGBT agenda, but I choose to fight on the side of God and those who love children. So, when left-wing journalist Richard Ruelas published this sleazy article, I felt it was my duty as a truth-teller to respond in earnest.

First, I’ll clarify for equity cheerleader Ruelas that I didn’t coin the expression “pedophiles by proxy” during the Higley Unified School District (HUSD) board meeting. I initially used the phrase while exposing the shenanigans of Peoria Unified School District (PUSD) Board President David Sandoval and Board Members Bill Sorensen and Melissa Ewing, who refused to read a physical privacy policy. The trio also failed to properly handle community concerns when public records revealed a district attorney advised Executive Director of Education, Christina Lopezlira, to inform administrators of “emerging practices for supporting transgender students,” and to “amicably address the competing interests and rights” of parents who object.

During the Title IX presentation on March 9, 2023, PUSD legal advisor, Lisa Anne Smith, confessed that SCOTUS (still) has not ruled on any case that permits or mandates biological boys and girls to share private spaces at school. This fact was reiterated by Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne.

Furthermore, HUSD Board President Tiffany Shultz and Board Member Amanda Wade mocked a proposal for an enhanced dress code, agreeing that it would “sexualize students’ bodies.” Shultz and Wade also agreed that educators’ attempts to regulate indecent and disruptive clothing was a “waste of time.” Wade even advocated for removing the word “immoral” from policies that govern electronic communications between students and district employees. It’s absurd how public servants dismiss concerns from parents and teachers who want to protect children.

To recap: In blatant disregard for students’ physical safety, Shultz, Wade, and HUSD Board Member Kristina Reese voted to adopt a less strict dress code. Sandoval, Sorensen, and Ewing voted—not once but twice—in favor of allowing all students to share private spaces without parental knowledge or consent.

So, what does this make them?

Reading Ruelas’ junk mail reminded me of my conversation with Liberty Elementary School District (LESD) Board President Michael Todd. He told me the conservative majority board was “trying to clean house” and that I was “late reporting” on his cross-dressing colleague, Paul Bixler. At this point, Bixler had served on the board two years, had already achieved state-level exposure during a House Education Committee meeting and was trending nationally after invading a female locker room. Todd assured me, “I’ve not ever seen Paul go into a women’s restroom on school grounds. Did I see him go into one at a hotel at a conference, yes I did…but that’s not at our schools.” Hmm…I guess I’ll never know (or care) what spooked Mr. Todd. Suffice to say, it was highly suspicious and unprofessional when this duly elected official threatened to resign over a belated news story.

The Ruelas article also sparked frustrations over responses from Chandler Unified School District Board Member Kurt Rohrs. Parents I spoke with said his position on allowing male and female students to share private spaces is unclear. Ruelas claims Rohrs said “he would not ask the board to enact a [bathroom] policy because it would violate federal law,” and that “the discussion about the issue isn’t rooted in fact.” Rohrs is quoted directly stating, “‘Parents are reacting this way because they are fearful. It’s clearly not rational. It’s emotional.’” At a glance, Rohrs’ comments come across dismissive and calloused. But keep in mind that Ruelas is a pretentious jester on a mission to distract everyone from the severe consequences of transgender ideology.

What happened twice in Loudoun County is a fact. What happened in Appomattox County is a fact. What happened in Vermont is a fact. What happened in Oklahoma is a fact. What happened in New Mexico is a fact. What happened in California is a fact. What’s happening in Arizona is a fact. So, I’d say irrational describes the diabolic social experiment that’s been deployed against America’s youth. And I’d say, if your kids are exposed to or assaulted by a member of the opposite sex on school grounds, you should be emotional about it! Ring every district phone, fill every inbox, darken every doorway, occupy every board meeting, alert the media, pull your kids out, sue that government-funded hotbed. Somebody is bound to get the message.

In general, board members looking for “middle ground” on school bathrooms are in for a turbulent 2024. When it comes to the safety and innocence of children, I implore you not to run as a conservative if you’re going to govern like a moderate. Your credibility will be shot, and your career will end in disgrace. There’s no such thing as moderate morality. You either have dignity and common sense, or you want boys and girls to share private spaces at school. You either believe parents have rights in public education, or you’re pro-government. You’ve either read the Title IX transcript and know that the corrupt Ninth Circuit ruling needs to be overturned, or you’re not up for the fight.

Of course, fiscal responsibility, increasing enrollments, and improving test scores are important. But these are not primary concerns for most parents. Preventing rape, violent assaults, hypersexualized curriculum, secret teacher-student relationships, and other exploitive behaviors are the leading issues in education right now. If these matters directly affect your district but you’re not in the majority (or you have a dissenting opinion), the best you can do is make coherent public comments, introduce constitutional policies, and cast votes that convey logical consistency to your constituents.

The worst you can do is entrust the verity of your statements to a narrative pirate like Richard Ruelas.

I want to highlight the passion and prowess of one board member who persisted in taking corrupt colleagues and administrators to task for their reckless policies and predatory practices. On November 21, 2023, America First Legal (AFL) announced that Mesa Public Schools (MPS) Board Member Rachel Walden is suing her district. The Arizona Sun Times reported that AFL “is representing Walden in her Maricopa County Superior Court lawsuit against [MPS] and Superintendent Andi Fourlis, which alleges they schemed to circumvent the Arizona Parents’ Bill of Rights after the community learned it was blocking parental notifications.” The MPS transgender support plan—adopted in 2015 without parental knowledge or consent—is dangerous, unlawful, and immoral. To grasp how radical MPS has become, read the Sun Times article alongside Walden’s opinion editorial and Mesa school board candidate Ed Steele’s analysis.

Using public education to push transgenderism on children is pure evil. Discussions on human sexuality are the primary responsibility of parents, not the government. Swapping clothes and pronouns, taking puberty blockers, and undergoing sex reassignment surgeries does not change the biblical, biological, and binary reality that dysphoric people are trying to escape. Moreover, unrestricted access to private spaces with members of the opposite sex is not a prescription for gender confusion. And pretending to be something you’re not will never cure suicidal ideations. Despite the U.S. Department of Education’s misinterpretation of the Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia case, and their ludicrous Title IX amendment proposal, forcing male and female students to share bathrooms is not the law of the land.

Parents, when hardened LGBT activists say they’re coming for your children, believe them. Invest time researching this issue and avoid gaslighting anecdotes like those propagated by the Arizona Republic. Before you openly chastise any board member, make sure you have sound knowledge and understanding of the Constitution, state laws, and district policies. Let’s continue to stand up together and push back against this present darkness.

I’ll see you in the boardrooms.

For nearly two decades, Tiffany Benson’s creative writing pursuits have surpassed all other interests. When she’s not investigating Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theories, she enjoys journaling and contributing to her blog Bigviewsmallwindow.com. She encourages average citizens to take on an active role in the grassroots fight for future generations.