by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Aug 26, 2023 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
The people of Arizona deserve elections that are both accessible and secure—where it is easy to vote and hard to cheat. It is the duty of the legislature to pass bills that ensure this, the Governor to sign those bills into law, and the Attorney General to enforce those laws.
But the Secretary of State’s role is different. This elected official is supposed to provide an Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that provides impartial direction to county recorders to ensure uniform and correct implementation of election law. But just like his predecessor in this role before him (now-Governor Katie Hobbs), our current Secretary of State Adrian Fontes has filled his EPM with unlawful provisions…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Adrienne Johnson | Aug 25, 2023 | Opinion
By Adrienne Johnson |
“I have to go to a homeschool event for my grandson this weekend,” my co-worker said.
“Homeschool? What’s that?” I inquired.
And that was the beginning of a huge life-changing path.
My family and I moved to Arizona from NY in the 90s and had not heard of homeschooling. Since I never felt comfortable sending my first born to pre-K and was concerned about his education in grade school, I found this crazy idea of homeschooling very intriguing. Before I knew it, we pulled our son out of public school. My six children have since graduated from homeschooling and those 25 years were a gift from God, a privilege, an honor, and the greatest blessing.
Homeschooling may seem daunting, because it is. But that’s okay. If your heart is heavy because you’re sending your kids off every day, or you are concerned with the state of education, or you want to be your child’s main source of knowledge and values, then I would venture to say you are up to the challenge.
Let me address some common concerns and questions.
Question: “Homeschooling would be a challenge financially for my family. How can I afford it?”
Answer: It certainly was a financial challenge for my family. We were a two-income family and I had a career, though in retrospect, I really wanted to be a stay-at-home mom. So, we made sacrifices. No vacations, not everyone got braces, sometimes we only had one car, we had a humble home, my husband worked long hours, and we’ve been graced with family support. We also used affordable resources like the public library. We have never regretted the sacrifices because honestly, we found it to be a gift. And now, as of last year, Arizona offers home educators the ability to use funds to educate your children at home through the ESA program, which makes doing so more affordable, especially for families in need.
Question: “What about socialization?”
Answer: I’ll be honest: this is a tough one and it will most likely take a great deal of effort on your part to socialize your kids. But let’s take a step back and first realize that having children in a classroom with kids their same age who must be quiet most of the day is not ideal. It is the norm for modern day society, but not ideal. Picture this: going to a park (okay, for this to be pleasant, imagine it’s November or March) once a week with a group of moms, some dads and even grandparents, sitting around chatting with your baby in your lap while your young kids dig in the playground sand, play tag, and climb trees; your older kids are playing board games, listening to music, and chatting. These gatherings are called homeschool park days. Imagine having co-ops (planned learning groups run by homeschool families), book clubs, writing, science, history, project clubs, homeschool theater, music, speech, PE, art, etiquette classes, service, holiday and church activities often with the same families. Many places, like museums, rec centers, and theaters, even have classes just for homeschoolers. There are plenty of homeschool groups to choose from, such as the wonderful Catholic one my family joined a few years ago. There are even homeschool field trips, dances (my kids organized a few), proms, and graduation ceremonies. Can you begin to picture the beautiful bonds and enriching friendships you will form with other families? The life lessons learned and the unique relationships that are formed are priceless.
Question: “It’s important for children to hear other people’s ideas. How does one achieve this as a homeschooler?”
Answer: Again, this is a challenge, but not unsurmountable. It is vital that children are exposed to differing views for them to have a well-rounded learning experience. This is best achieved through engaging with other homeschool families and through extracurricular activities. Activities such as book and writing clubs, co-ops, church groups, and park days provide ample opportunities for the sharing of ideas and healthy debate. More than likely your kids will also participate in traditional after school activities like sports or music lessons where they can interact and engage with others.
Question: “I can’t homeschool. I don’t have the patience, the time, or the skills. How can I homeschool if I am not qualified?”
Answer: Simply put, you can. Because you love your children, you will find a way to practice patience, make time, utilize the skills you have, and find help with the ones you lack. The resources abound, from science center classes to tutors. As far as time goes, homeschooling generally takes a lot less time per day compared to traditional school, which is wonderful; it allows time for self-study and exploration of subject areas your children are interested in pursuing. My children have studied remarkable things on their own: American history, geology, nutrition, music composition, novel writing, graphic art, coding, politics, quantum physics, and theology! They found their own resources, mentors, and inspiration. And I was able to incorporate lessons on life skills such as personal finance, sewing a button, and how to give a good handshake. You can do this. Pray, lean on your spouse and family, and call a friend for support to get you through the decision process and those tough days.
Question: “There are so many homeschool resources out there. How do I choose the right curriculum and the right method?”
Answer: Ugh, I know. This can take a while. I went from a brief, rigid homeschool method to student-directed schooling to unschooling. I would wake up in the middle of the night many times to brainstorm a great new idea or to wonder if I was on the right path. The best thing I can say is to be kind to yourself, read and research, talk to others, and don’t be afraid to change. Most of all, enjoy and love your kids. I have had the greatest joys in my life waking up every day, because really: every day is a learning day. Every day offered the privilege of being with my children and being their primary source of learning (along with my husband). My fondest memories are laying on the floor reading. Reading, discussing, debating. We still do this!
There are so many homeschool choices from traditional online classes to learning through play. While I never did online work or followed a curriculum, I can say those options work for many families. I preferred learning through play (Lego, blocks, board games, critical thinking activities), exploring the outdoors, projects, reading, discourse, and writing. My family concentrated on rhetoric and logic. Through homeschooling, we were able to focus on virtues that can be incorporated into everything you do with your children, as God intended. Homeschooling is a natural and healthy opportunity to foster your children’s value system throughout their formative years so that they have a sound foundation as they enter the adult world.
Question: “How can my high schooler get accepted into college?”
Answer: I had some challenges because I designed my children’s education from scratch and composed their transcripts and diplomas. But as homeschooling became more the norm than when I started, college acceptance became easier. Most colleges have a homeschool applicant path. Many homeschool families choose to get official homeschool transcripts and diplomas through homeschool programs. Some children attend their local community college, get an associate degree, then transfer to a four-year university (though this path may limit the possibility for scholarships). My suggestion is to start the college search early. Get an idea of what your child is most interested in studying, and start researching what the requirements are for homeschool applicants. When the time comes, your child can study for and take any necessary standardized testing, then apply to a couple of “safe” schools that are most likely doable, a couple of dream schools, and a couple of in-between options. Know the deadlines, get recommendation letters if needed, and fill out those applications.
Question: “But what about…?”
Answer: There are so many questions, right? I highly suggest these helpful resources:
And guess what? I work with AZ Women of Action and would be happy to talk with you about homeschooling! Pray on it, do some research, join a couple of homeschool groups, and send in the homeschool affidavit. The blessings of homeschooling will bring you and your family priceless experiences and insurmountable joys. Send us an email to get in touch with Adrienne if you have questions about homeschooling your children!
Adrienne Johnson is a mom of six and serves on Arizona Women of Action’s Executive Team. You can find out more about their work here.
by Ann Atkinson | Aug 23, 2023 | Opinion
By Ann Atkinson |
Higher education, ideally a bastion of free thought and inquiry, should eagerly embrace a multitude of voices and perspectives—we usually call that thinking and learning. Yet, in practice, the ubiquitous doctrines of inclusion inscribed into university charters are not without exceptions. These exceptions materialize from the judgments of self-appointed arbiters of speech, who wield the authority to classify ideas and individuals as hateful and unsafe as they break from a general orthodoxy of perspective. Disguised as protections of students from pernicious notions, these arbiters diligently strive to condemn, censor, and chill speech they do not like – while university leadership does nothing.
I experienced this exact condemnation when I orchestrated a university-sanctioned event in my capacity as the Executive Director of the T.W. Lewis Center for Personal Development at ASU’s Barrett Honors College. The event, titled “Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” took place at ASU Gammage Auditorium on February 8, 2023. Esteemed experts joined the panel, with Dr. Radha Gopalan, a distinguished heart transplant cardiologist, engaging on health; Robert Kiyosaki, expert on money and the acclaimed author of “Rich Dad Poor Dad,” delving into wealth; and Dennis Prager, co-founder of PragerU and, for over 40 years running, a nationally syndicated radio host, addressing happiness. Complementing the panelists were speakers Charlie Kirk, the visionary behind Turning Point USA, and Tom Lewis, a notable businessman, philanthropist, and namesake donor of the Lewis Center.
At Arizona State University (ASU), the culture of arbitration of speech has infiltrated deeply. This might come as a surprise given ASU’s acclaimed reputation for its free speech policies and its president’s commitment to this cause. In June, I published editorials in the Wall Street Journal “I Paid for Free Speech at Arizona State” and in the National Review, “Some Universities Care About Free Speech…Until They Don’t,” in which I revealed the free speech crisis at ASU’s Barrett Honors College while I also praised ASU for its free speech policies, at least as they state them on paper. I had hoped for a steadfast defense against blatant infringements on free speech that undermine ASU’s policies and declarations. Regrettably, my optimism faded. With each day, ASU’s actions, or lack thereof, erode my confidence in their stated defense of free speech.
It is imperative to grasp the suppression of speech in our academic institutions and to fully comprehend the essence of true freedom of thought which can only come from true freedom of speech. Only then can we embark on endeavors that genuinely promote the education and advancement of society.
ASU President Michael Crow may declare that “speakers speak at ASU,” but can we truly consider speech as free when over 80% of the faculty retaliates against speech they deem “wrong”? Do free speech ideals hold when deans prescribe limitations on speakers’ speech? Can we claim freedom of speech when marketing materials are removed due to faculty offense, while contrasting viewpoints bask in promotional spotlight? Is speech uninhibited when professors dedicate valuable class time to condemn the speech of other units? Does true free speech persist when professors discourage student participation in an event? And then stand vigilantly at the event entrance, watching attendees approach. Can we genuinely say that speech is free when college deans fire leaders and dismantle centers that uphold values no longer in harmony with the college’s leanings? The resounding answer is no. This is free speech under siege.
On August 3, 2023, a group of scholars who convened at Princeton established the “Princeton Principles for a Campus Culture of Free Inquiry.” This assembly distinctly underscores the pressing predicament faced by numerous higher education institutions that falter in upholding cultures of robust and uninhibited speech.
The Princeton Principles squarely confront this concern: “Some members of the university community argue that robust freedom of inquiry permits speech that can ‘harm’ students’ well-being or hinder institutional efforts to attain particular conceptions of social justice or ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’”
The case of the Lewis Center is illustrative, with 39 of the 47 Barrett Honors College faculty launching a nationwide condemnation campaign against the Health, Wealth, and Happiness program, speakers, donors, and staff. The Barrett deans actively endorsed this campaign and exercised censorship of speech the faculty found objectionable. The campaign led to intimidations and firings, which is to say prices to pay—sanctions—for exercising free inquiry and speech.
Having policies and ratings extolling free speech alone isn’t enough if university leadership doesn’t enforce their own standards. My experiences at ASU revealed a bureaucratic machinery that prioritizes safeguarding the institution’s interests over addressing free speech violations. I spent months reporting these violations internally and escalated the matter to ASU’s upper echelons and even testified in a legislative hearing. As of mid-August 2023, ASU and its board maintain that they have discovered “a series of examples of unfettered free speech,” aligning with the arbiters.
Self-governance alone proves inadequate in safeguarding our First Amendment rights on campus. The arbiters of speech are not likely to relinquish their control in the absence of decisive action by leadership. The responsibility rests upon parents, students, donors, the media, concerned citizens, and elected officials to unite and reestablish freedom of speech without fear of retribution, for there is no freedom of anything if it comes with a penalty for its exercise, including speech.
The Princeton Principles underscore that “If there is clear and convincing evidence that faculty members and administrators are not adequately fulfilling their responsibilities to foster and defend a culture of free inquiry on campus, other agents including regents, trustees, students, and alumni groups in the wider campus network may and indeed should become involved.”
Gratitude must be extended to parents, students, alumni, donors, lawmakers, and concerned citizens for following this story who rallied behind the cause of free speech. Special acknowledgment should be given to leaders like Arizona Senator Anthony Kern and State Representative Quang Nguyen for co-chairing the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on the Freedom of Expression at Arizona’s Public Universities. And sincere thanks should be extended to Arizona Speaker of the House Ben Toma and Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen for their unwavering support of free speech for all.
Despite receiving broad support, sustained vigilance is imperative. We must persist in recognizing speech suppression and holding university leadership accountable for defending the realm of free speech, even for ideas deemed offensive, such as, laughably, health, wealth, and happiness.
Ann Atkinson can be reached at her Twitter handle, @Ann_Atkinson_AZ.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Aug 21, 2023 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
For years, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) has been the stomping ground for the left to push its Green New Deal Agenda. In fact, it was just over two years ago when the commission quietly released its plan to impose California-style energy mandates in our state. Their goal was to ban fossil fuels and require most electricity companies to provide “clean” energy by 2050. Thankfully, the commission voted down these energy mandates in January 2022. But that hasn’t stopped the left from trying to find other ways to exploit the ACC.
One of their latest efforts has centered on Tucson, and as part of its Green New Deal agenda, Tucson Electric Power (TEP) asked the ACC for rate hikes to subsidize electric vehicles. But TEP didn’t get everything it wanted…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Cheryl Todd | Aug 19, 2023 | Opinion
By Cheryl Todd |
Much has been said, debated, pontificated, blustered, and raged about the Second Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights. Major news media, political talking points, and even official speeches delivered by the President of the United States are filled with confusing and contradictory rhetoric posing as factual information. Quiz yourself and your friends with this “Two Truths and a Lie.” Can you spot what is true and what is not?
A. The Second Amendment refers specifically to the right to keep and bear guns.
B. The Second Amendment is the only place in the U.S. Bill of Rights that includes the clause “shall not be infringed.”
C. The Second Amendment refers to the “right of the people.”
A. LIE! The Second Amendment refers to “arms” which can be guns—rifles or handguns, knives, swords, bows and arrows, spears, axes, cannons, explosives, etc. As explained by The Tenth Amendment Center, “Today the word ‘arms’ refers collectively to offensive or defensive weapons. The word’s meaning has changed little since it was first used seven hundred years ago. Its definition has never restricted civilian use of military weapons, including when the Second Amendment was approved.”
B. TRUTH! The original text of the Second Amendment is a mere 27 words in length and ends with the clause “shall not be infringed.” This phrase is not found in any other amendment or in any other part of our Founding Documents. This speaks volumes to the vital importance of this amendment.
C.TRUTH! The text of the Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” While proponents of anti-Gun ideology hyper-focus on the first four words (“A well regulated Militia”) and ignore the following words that define and clarify (“the right of the people”), the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has ruled on this issue multiple times. In Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008, in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, and most recently in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, “[T]he Court points out, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”
In summaries from these historic SCOTUS cases, the Justices have stated that “The Second Amendment protects the rights of law-abiding, adult citizens (‘the People’) to keep and bear arms, particularly weapons in common use. Therefore, any law restricting that right needs to be consistent with the Nation’s ‘historical tradition of firearm regulation.’” And, “The Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to both possess and carry weapons for self-defense, particularly weapons that are in common use among the populace.”
Bottom Line:
The brilliance and foresight of our Founders have stood for centuries as a firewall preventing people in positions of power from whittling away at the freedoms of the average citizen. Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, our Founders have been proven prophetic. Through regulations, legal maneuvers, politically-based compromises, propaganda, or tricky wordplay, infringements have been ever-eroding our right to own and use tools of self-defense. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are inspired documents, and so far the Supreme Court has upheld the power and significance of these documents, but it is the responsibility of each generation to reassert the principles that our Founders fought, bled, starved, and died to secure for our nation. Read the documents for yourself. Do not rely on others to interpret them for you. They are part of your precious and unique inheritance of Freedom and heritage of American values.
Cheryl Todd has an extensive history of being a Second Amendment Advocate. Along with being a Visiting Fellow for the Independent Women’s Forum, she is the owner of AZFirearms Auctions, Executive Producer & Co-Host of Gun Freedom Radio, the founder of the grassroots movement Polka Dots Are My Camo, and the AZ State Director for the DC Project.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Aug 18, 2023 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
Critics of Donald Trump once counted tax evasion among his many faults. But it turned out that he wasn’t breaking any tax laws. He was simply utilizing the complex web of exemptions, deductions, and other rules available to reduce his tax bill to near zero.
It would be hard to imagine a worse tax system than our federal government’s. It is based on taxing economic productivity, which in a free-market system, benefits us all. Politicians use taxation not only to generate revenue but to pursue a grab bag of policies ranging from welfare programs to “climate change,” home ownership, and subsidization of state and local taxes.
The tax code is hopelessly complex and expensive to operate. Individuals and businesses spend around $37 billion and over 3 billion hours annually in tax compliance, up to 10 times as much as taxpayers in other wealthy countries.
Phil Gramm was right 25 years ago to suggest that the best option would be to scrap our entire tax system and replace it with a single national sales tax. He didn’t succeed, of course, but the concept is so sound it still remains active in academia, think tanks, and government white papers.
Representative Buddy Carter introduced the Fair Tax Act of 2023 in Congress this year and was promised a floor vote. This bill would eliminate all personal and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security, estate and gift taxes, as well as the Internal Revenue Service itself.
Instead, there would be an effective 30 percent consumption tax, but households would get a tax rebate check each month adjusted for family size and income. The rebate would have the effect of exempting all purchases up to the poverty line from taxation. The tax rate and rebates could be adjusted to make the tax revenue neutral and roughly as progressive as our current structure.
Still, Democrats and their media buddies immediately attacked the proposal as “tax cuts for the rich, period” and a “Republican dream to build a wealth aristocracy.” Even the Wall Street Journal criticized it on political grounds, worrying that even though it “made sense,” it might hand Democrats a juicy campaign issue.
But its critics, perhaps intentionally, misunderstand the bill. Americans would not on the net pay more taxes. Nor would low-income earners be punished. The tax burden wouldn’t grow but only be redistributed.
Outsized deductions and other tax shelters would vanish, meaning the ultra-wealthy and the big spenders would pay taxes more appropriate to their incomes. Savers would obviously benefit. Investments could grow tax-free.
Some critics argue that tax evasion would be a problem. But that’s true of any tax scheme, including the one we have now. The IRS estimates that Americans underpay their taxes by $500 billion annually, in addition to the billions of fraudulent claims in programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit.
The Fair Tax wouldn’t have to be perfect to be more efficient and less cumbersome than our current system of self-reporting buttressed with audits. Avoiding the stressful hassles with the IRS would be a welcome relief to many Americans.
A more substantial concern is that future legislatures may try to augment the consumption tax by adding back income and other taxes so that we end up with the worst of both worlds. A constitutional amendment prohibiting an income tax would be preferable. Otherwise, careful consideration must be given to rigid self-activating safeguards to protect taxpayers.
The Fair Tax has never passed because of political opposition from groups that have too much to lose by giving up the status quo. Yet if government wants to subsidize things like housing, electric vehicles, or healthcare, it would be more transparent and accountable to appropriate the money rather than disguising it as a tax deduction or credit. Likewise, if Americans want to financially support charitable causes, and they do, they should do it with their own money, not a partial government subsidy that comes with strings attached.
Tax reforms are always opposed by those who benefit from the current structure. But the Fair Tax would be a far more equitable and transparent way to fund government. It deserves a look.
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.
