Before the Declaration of Independence, there was the Olive Branch Petition.
Written 250 years ago on July 5th, the Olive Branch Petition was Thomas Jefferson’s first attempt to explain to King George III why the American Colonies were rebelling and ask for reconciliation.
The “Shot heard ‘round the world” had been fired almost three months earlier, and the Battle of Bunker Hill had just ended. It was readily apparent to the Second Continental Congress that the situation was spinning out of control. In a last-ditch effort to stave off a rebellion and attempt a peaceful settlement, John Hancock authorized the drafting of a document to explain the colonies’ position, acknowledge their loyalty to the King and propose a solution to the conflict.
Everything the colonists knew about their government was that the King’s representative controlled most of the governing of their political subdivision, and the actions of the Royal Governor were generally respected as if the King himself was in residence. What the colonists could not appreciate was the emerging British constitutional government caused Parliament to become more powerful while the King’s authority gradually eroded. Most critical in this tug of war for authority was the power of the purse. The King and Parliament routinely argued over taxing and spending with Parliament eventually gaining the upper hand.
But during this time, while the role and responsibility of the King and Parliament were being established, the colonies were in the midst of creating their own unique political system. Initially, the colonies grew and developed with little, if any, input from the King. The customs as British subjects were transferred in a seamless manner, almost by osmosis, that accepted a local structure of self-government that was limited and almost invisible. The law and accompanying political organization were accepted by the colonies because they were familiar; but most importantly, they worked.
Always looking for new revenue to fund both the Crown and Parliament, the colonies became an untapped revenue stream. Under the excuse that the cost of protecting the colonies from foreign invasion should be paid for by the direct beneficiaries (the colonies), Parliament acted. Beginning in 1764, Parliament sought to impose various taxes on the colonies. The King benefited from these taxes as a portion of the generated revenue directly funded his royal court, but the numerous acts imposing taxes were not issued in the name of the sovereign, but in the name of Parliament.
So, with each successive tax, the colonists became more vexed and sought to avoid new levies in many ways; some benign, like smuggling or boycotting to avoid payment, or direct action, like the destruction of property to illustrate displeasure. But in all these aggressions against parliamentary acts, the colonists reasoned that if King George could understand the situation and reign in Parliament, then the colonial relationship could be restored. The colonists failed to appreciate the King’s complicity in the imposition of the various taxes.
When the relationship between the colonies further deteriorated and red coats were ordered to disarm colonial militias, the war of words turned into a hot war with the loss of life and destruction of property. Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill were more than simple police actions — they were serious military conflicts with significant casualties. With the conflict escalating, the Continental Congress tried one last step and appealed to the King with the Olive Branch Petition, which almost begged for a restoration of their former relationship. Thomas Jefferson’s initial draft of the Olive Branch Petition was too strident and bellicose, so with input from other founding fathers, John Dickinson would tone it down, and his revision was sent to the King after being approved by Congress.
King George never read the conciliatory document and instead responded by issuing his own Proclamation of Rebellion authorizing force to restrain the rebellion and hang the leaders. The Olive Branch Petition was an attempt to avoid bloodshed and restore an amicable relationship between the crown and colonies, but in rejecting the petition, the King, to his eventual detriment, turned loyalists into rebels.
One year later, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence would set an inevitable course; Washington’s victory at Yorktown would conclude the matter.
Will Sellers is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, graduate of Hillsdale College, and was appointed by Gov. Kay Ivey as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of Alabama. He is best reached at jws@willsellers.com
Among many issues, the past two elections have been a referendum on the public school system throughout our country. And that’s especially true here in Arizona. The people have shown that they are tired of the leftist indoctrination, wasted taxpayer dollars on declining test scores, attacks on parental rights, and more.
Immediately after his inauguration, President Trump proved that cleaning up our schools wasn’t just a campaign talking point. He issued an executive order (EO) ending radical indoctrination in K-12 schooling, and the U.S. Department of Education took action to eliminate harmful Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. It’s been a breath of fresh air, frankly, but the woke crazies in our state are not going down without a fight.
Back in February, a teacher at Marana High School was suspended after he challenged President Trump’s denial of the existence of more than two genders during a classroom lecture. Then, in May, an advocacy group released audio from inside a Catalina Foothills School District (CFSD) ninth grade health classroom where an alleged teacher gave a “lesson” on LGBTQ issues and criticized religious texts. What any of this has to do with “health” is beyond us, but it certainly shows the lengths these crazies are willing to go in order to push their radical message.
Not wanting to be outdone, Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) also decided to get into the mix…
Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program, launched in 2011, empowers families to tailor their children’s education with state funds. The 2025-2026 school year covers private school tuition, tutoring, and therapies, averaging $7,000 – $8,000 per student.
While the program serves over 93,000 students, that number is only a fraction of its possible reach. Bureaucratic inefficiencies and government red tape currently hinder broader access and limit the benefits of ESAs. The approval of the 2025-26 ESA Parent Handbook could have fixed this, but as critics pointed out, the handbook’s restrictive guidelines and manual review processes create more bureaucratic obstacles.
Now, it’s time to examine some of the key aspects of the ESA Program. We need real change, including adopting best practices from other states to streamline operations, better serve families, and extend this opportunity to more Arizona children.
ESA Application Process
The ESA program provides eligibility to any Arizona child from kindergarten through 12th grade, including preschoolers with disabilities, as outlined in the 2025-26 ESA Parent Handbook and A.R.S. §15-240. Families apply via the Arizona Department of Education’s (ADE) online portal, submitting proof of residency and, for students with disabilities, an IEP or 504 Plan.
Approvals are typically granted within 30 days. Approved families sign a contract to use funds for educational expenses and to forgo public school enrollment. Quarterly tuition deposits are managed through ClassWallet, requiring allocation to core subjects like reading and math, with receipt submission to ensure compliance. Non-compliance risks account suspension, balancing flexibility with accountability.
ClassWallet and Financial Management
ClassWallet simplifies ESA fund management through the ESA Applicant Portal, allowing parents to monitor balances and make transactions. It offers four spending options: the Marketplace, with pre-approved items like textbooks; Pay Vendor, for payments to providers such as private schools; the Debit Card, which requires receipt validation for purchases like school supplies; and Reimbursement, for out-of-pocket costs after review.
Marketplace purchases are automatically deducted, like a math workbook, are automatically deducted, streamlining routine expenses. However, non-Marketplace transactions require manual review as mandated by the 2025-26 handbook, which causes inefficiencies and frustrates parents.
Manual Review Staffing Strain
The 2025-26 handbook requires a manual review for non-Marketplace items, a detailed and staff-intensive process. Items like custom curricula, tutoring from unregistered providers, computer hardware, therapies for students with disabilities, debit card purchases, public school fees, and expensive items such as a $500 musical instrument must be verified for educational relevance. This includes providing specific documentation for IEP students and detailed invoices.
With more than 93,000 students, that could mean up to 186,000 reviews annually taking 46,608 staff hours. That would require at least 23 full-time ADE employees, thereby straining resources. These reviews, mandated by A.R.S. §15-2403(B), caused delays for 77% of parents, according to a 2024 Heritage Foundation report, which fuels perceptions of bureaucratic inefficiency.
The 2025-26 Handbook Controversy
The latest handbook’s approval by the Arizona State Board of Education (SBE) with an 8-1 vote sparked controversy over its compliance with state law. Critics, including parent Angela Faber, argued that its restrictive approval process, requiring additional documentation for disability-related expenses, violates A.R.S. §15-2402(B)(4), which permits funds for therapies and assistive technology.
Republican lawmakers criticized “overly restrictive cost guidelines,” such as a removed $16,000 cap on items like cellos, claiming the handbook defied a legislative warning. Still, no formal directive is documented, making the accusation speculative. The ADE asserts compliance with A.A.C. R7-2-1503 and A.R.S. §15-231(B), with a 30-day appeal period for denied expenses to ensure recourse. Despite revisions, late draft postings limited public review and increased debate. A 2023 report showed 96% of ESA funds supported academic goals, highlighting the program’s potential when managed effectively.
Lessons from Other States
Expanding ClassWallet’s Marketplace to include more pre-approved items could decrease manual reviews by 20–30% to improve the handbook’s inefficiencies. Implementing a machine-learning system for routine approvals, modeled on Florida’s Family Empowerment Scholarship or Tennessee’s Individualized Education Account, would simplify processing. Reinstating debit cards with Merchant Category Code restrictions and adopting risk-based audits could reduce review volume by 40%. Better parental education through tutorials could lower errors, easing administrative burdens.
Potential Leadership Change: Horne vs. Yee
Amid the handbook concerns, Superintendent Tom Horne may face Treasurer Kimberly Yee in the Republican primary for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction. During his tenure, Horne has advanced educational initiatives by eliminating the Kindergarten Entry Assessment to reduce teacher workload and expanded school safety with 565 new officers. As Arizona State Treasurer, Kimberly Yee has championed government transparency by pushing for easily accessible online budgets, with the Arizona Treasury website providing clear information on taxpayer spending, enhancing public accountability. Yee has also prioritized financial literacy for high school courses and a Financial Literacy Fund to educate students, seniors, and vulnerable populations. Voters are urged to select the leader in 2026 who is most qualified and prepared to improve upon the administratively challenged ESA program. Check out my previous column for more information about the Horne and Yee matchup.
Conclusion: Strengthening a National Model
The ESA program’s flexibility for over 93,000 students makes it a national leader, but the 2025-26 handbook’s manual reviews and controversial approval process show administrative challenges. Arizona can improve operations while keeping accountability by increasing transparency and adopting automation, learning from Florida and Tennessee.
For more details, visit https://www.azed.gov/esa or call (602) 364-1969. Be aware of potential staff availability constraints.
Tamra Farah leads AmericanStrategies.org. She brings twenty years of experience in public policy and politics as a journalist, focusing on protecting individual liberty and advocating for limited government. She has worked with ten local, state, and federal candidates and organizations, such as Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, Moms for America, and Arizona Women of Action. Farah has regularly appeared on conservative radio, television, and print media.
At a recent Senate hearing, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said something I never thought I’d hear from a top federal health official: “I don’t think people should be taking medical advice from me.”
That wasn’t a dodge. That was honesty. And, frankly, it’s a breath of fresh air.
For too long, health bureaucrats in Washington have believed their job is to dictate Americans’ medical decisions. That mindset led to lockdowns, mandates, censorship, and the sidelining of safe, effective tools that were widely distributed earlier in the pandemic, such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Secretary Kennedy’s testimony suggests a different view: the role of government is not to play doctor, but to protect the freedom of every American to decide what’s best for their own health.
That’s the right idea and the essence of true healthcare choice.
Contrast this with the last administration. Under President Joe Biden, Americans were forced to choose between a vaccine they didn’t want — with a plethora of boosters — and continued restrictions on their liberties.
Biden didn’t promote vaccine choice. He aggressively pushed vaccines and boosters as the primary defense from COVID. Meanwhile, monoclonal antibodies — preventive and therapeutic tools that cut the risk of hospitalization and death as high as 74% and 84% in high-risk patients — were pushed aside. The administration significantly scaled back their distribution even though mAbs successfully treated President Donald Trump and were backed by countless doctors who called for broader access.
Why? Because the Biden White House chose to prioritize vaccination above all else. It preferred to micromanage Americans’ care rather than empower families to make informed decisions.
That wasn’t science, it was politics. And Americans paid the price.
As my son Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, also a medical doctor, said countless times, some patients were even denied mAbs due to what he described as “partisan political games” — namely, the politically-charged FDA guidance that many hospitals felt pressured to follow throughout the pandemic. Five years later, the FDA still hasn’t fully approved a monoclonal antibody product.
That’s not “following the science” or respecting the people’s right and ability to make their own health care decisions. That’s the worst type of government overreach — micromanaging your medical decisions by erecting regulatory roadblocks designed to limit your options by and control what treatments and preventatives you can access. When Washington dictates what care you’re allowed to pursue, what opinions you’re allowed to hear, and what shots you’re required to take, you’re no longer living in a free country.
Now, under a new administration and with Secretary Kennedy at the helm of HHS, there’s an opportunity to chart a new course — one rooted in freedom, not fear.
Americans should have access to vaccines if they want them, but they should also have access to alternatives like mAbs. They should be allowed to hear all sides of a medical debate, not just the one approved by government “experts.” And they should be trusted to make informed choices for themselves and their families.
Secretary Kennedy’s comments may not have pleased the political class, but they honored the principle this country was founded on: government serves the people, not the other way around.
Real health policy doesn’t come from control. It comes from having confidence in the American people to make their own choices. At this early stage, I’m so glad that Secretary Kennedy seems to understand as much.
Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) that passed the House of Representatives last month contained numerous wins for the American people: permanent tax relief, funding for border security, an expansion of Health Savings Accounts, and even a new program to expand school choice. But arguably the most impactful accomplishment in the BBB was their success in taking a machete to the labyrinth of green new scam tax subsidies created by Joe Biden and the Democrats through the inflation-creating Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). That alone makes it the most beautiful feature of the Big Beautiful Bill.
The House’s version included key provisions sunsetting some of the worst subsidies authorized under the IRA, including:
Ending the Clean Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for any project that doesn’t start within 60 days of the enacting legislation and isn’t in service by 2028;
Ending the Clean Electricity Investment Credit and Transferability of Tax Credits for Wind and Solar;
Eliminating the Tax Credit for Residential Solar and Rebates for “Green” Products;
Repealing the Electric Vehicle Credit designed to Force Manufacturers to Abandon Gas Powered Vehicles.
The rollback of these subsidies in the House BBB was a monumental feat, especially given the army of lobbyists hired by the green energy grifters to defend these subsidies on Capitol Hill. In fact, the big spenders in the GOP caucus almost succeeded in stopping the subsidy rollback. If not for the stalwart efforts of the House Freedom Caucus and the White House stepping in at the last minute of negotiations, the green scam subsidies would not be on the chopping block.
But now the bill is in the Senate, and the initial draft released of the revised Big Beautiful Bill by Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo is anything but big or beautiful…
Our Republic depends on the integrity of every ballot and the trust the American people place in the electoral system. That trust is on the line, and I am here to continue sounding the alarm.
After reviewing credible, disturbing reports regarding Runbeck Election Services and Maricopa County’s handling of ballots during the 2024 General Election, I have formally called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to launch a federal investigation into whether basic election protocols were violated.
This is not partisan theater. The allegations are signs of possible systemic failures or a complete disregard for the chain of custody that protects every legal vote.
As a former prosecutor and Army Reserve intelligence officer, I do not jump to conclusions. I review the facts at hand, and I believe in due process and evidence.
But I also believe that when red flags are waving this high and wide, public servants have a duty to act.
During my time representing the people of Arizona, I have seen firsthand how trust in our elections has declined. In 2022, polling showed that more than half of Arizona voters doubted whether the official vote count reflected all legal votes. That level of public distrust is toxic to a functioning democracy, and it cannot be ignored.
Election security is national security.
In both 2020 and 2022, Arizona faced scrutiny from all sides. We endured hand counts, audits, lawsuits, and national attention. The public was told repeatedly that every vote was counted, every procedure followed. However, if the most basic rules surrounding ballot security were violated, then those assurances are meaningless.
The American people deserve to know the truth.
That is why I am asking the Justice Department to determine whether Runbeck provided a secure environment for ballot printing, transportation, and storage.
If all procedures were followed correctly, then all involved should welcome a federal investigation and seek to reaffirm public confidence. If those procedures were ignored or manipulated, then we need immediate corrective action and full accountability. A transparent process benefits everyone, regardless of political party.
Reports have indicated that there was no meaningful safeguards or oversight in place at all times. That is not just bad optics. That is a recipe for disaster. Even the appearance of impropriety damages voter confidence and invites division across the country.
As a representative for Arizona’s 8th Congressional District, I take my oath to protect our Constitution seriously. That includes the right of every American to participate in a fair election. When systems break down or appear compromised, it is not enough to hope for the best. We must act to investigate, fix them, and restore faith in the system.
Some critics will try to paint this investigation as just another political stunt. They will try to lump it in with previous election disputes to dismiss it out of hand. But that misses the point entirely. This request is not being driven by partisanship. It is being driven by facts, by public concern, and by a genuine desire to strengthen our democratic institutions.
We are not repeating past fights. We are demanding answers in the present. We are relying on the lawful, nonpartisan authority of the Justice Department to get to the bottom of this. We are asking for transparency, not a political advantage.
So, what does this mean for the people of Arizona? It means you are not being ignored. Your concerns about the integrity of our elections are being taken seriously. Your right to have your voice heard is being defended.
To the American people watching this unfold, know this: we are not looking to undermine democracy. We are looking to restore and strengthen it.
We are not interested in sowing chaos. We are committed to restoring order and confidence. Because when trust in elections breaks down, the entire system begins to fracture.
I will keep pushing for this investigation until the necessary action is taken. I will not back down from the responsibility to represent the people of Arizona with clarity, courage, and conviction. Our elections are too important to be left in doubt. Let’s fix this now before it is too late.
