Is DEI a good thing? Is being Hispanic an accomplishment? We must challenge these prevailing narratives and advocate for a more empowering discourse.
In today’s America, the conversation around racism has been hijacked, not by those who genuinely seek equality, but by a group that benefits from keeping minorities in a constant state of victimhood. As a proud Hispanic, I’ve seen how this narrative has been weaponized, not to uplift us but to keep us boxed into stereotypes that do more harm than good. These narratives harm us and undermine the progress toward a truly equal society.
We hear it constantly: “Speak up; you are a victim!” But have we ever stopped to ask who is looking down on us? Who is genuinely being racist? It’s not the hardworking Americans who see us as equals.
The Danger of the Victimhood Mentality
For too long, certain groups have pushed the idea that minorities, especially Hispanics, are perpetual victims who need special protection. This is evident in how some media outlets portray us, in the rhetoric of specific political figures, and in the policies that are supposed to help us but often end up reinforcing this narrative. But here’s the truth: this narrative doesn’t empower us; it chains us and, quite frankly, is abusive. When we accept the label of victim, we surrender our power. We allow others to dictate our worth instead of defining it through our achievements.
This is precisely what they want to control. They want minorities to feel oppressed so they can appear as “saviors or heroes” and expand government power under the premise of helping us. But we don’t need them; they perpetuate issues with no solutions. We don’t need pity. We need equal opportunity, which doesn’t divide us but unites us in a more inclusive America.
DEI policies could unintentionally perpetuate the victimhood narrative. These policies appear to be designed under the pretense of helping minorities, but they could end up hurting us the most. Take affirmative action and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, for example. These policies don’t level the playing field; they manipulate it. They make it seem like our success is only possible through handouts rather than hard work. They make companies prioritize skin color over competence.
And let’s not forget the devastating impact of government policies that fail to address fundamental issues affecting our community, like crime, border security, and drug trafficking. The very same people who cry about protecting minorities are the ones who have allowed cartels to flood our neighborhoods with drugs, endangering our youth. Policies that weaken law enforcement or ignore the crisis at our border don’t help Hispanics; they harm us.
When the real, actual cases of racism are reported, those are not taken seriously because of this abuse of making everything racist.
A dangerous byproduct of this divisive ideology is the rise of reverse racism. For years, we were told that discrimination is wrong, yet now, some openly advocate for hostility toward white Americans. They justify it by saying it’s “retribution” for past injustices. But racism, no matter who the target is, remains wrong.
How can we ever expect to move forward as a united nation if we keep fueling resentment and division? Instead of blaming one group for the struggles of another, we should recognize that success comes from hard work, responsibility, and perseverance, values that transcend race.
We must have a path forward for Hispanics not to feel like victims. We are entrepreneurs, professionals, veterans, business owners, and leaders. Our value doesn’t come from DEI policies, handouts, or political talking points; it comes from our contributions to this country. It’s time we reject the labels imposed on us and demand recognition for who we are: Americans who have earned our place through merit, not privilege.
Let’s stop allowing politicians and activists to define our identity for us. Let’s stand up against the dangerous rhetoric that keeps minorities trapped in victimhood. And most importantly, let’s ensure that future generations of Hispanics grow up knowing that their potential is limitless, not because of government assistance, but because of their hard work and determination. It’s time to change the narrative.
One of, if not the, highlights of President Donald Trump’s first months in office has been the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by entrepreneur (and the world’s richest man) Elon Musk. Under Musk’s leadership, DOGE has not just exposed wasteful spending— but worked to reduce spending by eliminating entire agencies and even cabinet departments.
For example, DOGE pulled back the curtain on the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Before DOGE exposed it, most Americans thought of USAID (if they thought of it at all) as an agency that provided humanitarian aid and development assistance to impoverished people in other countries. DOGE revealed that USAID’s humanitarian work was a cover for their true mission: making political and cultural change overseas. This is why USAID has spent millions on absurd “development” projects like transgender plays in Colombia, DEI schemes in Serbia and electric car subsidies in Vietnam.
Eliminating USAID would not mean the end of overseas development and humanitarian aid. It would mean that the aid would come from private charities. These charities can do a better job of providing aid than a government bureaucracy. As outrageous as USAID’s spending is, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the Pentagon’s over $800 billion (and on track to exceed $2 trillion by 2033) budget.
The “defense” budget is the third largest item in the federal budget, behind Social Security and Medicare. Few politicians will risk the wrath of senior citizens by voting to make any changes to these programs unless the changes are phased in such a way as to not affect those currently on, or close to, relying on the programs. Thus, any serious plan to reduce spending and debt must cut the bloated “defense” budget. Savings from reductions in military spending can be used to help support those dependent on federal programs as Congress unwinds the welfare state. Cutting military spending would be politically popular as most polls show a majority of Americans— including Republicans—support reducing America’s military commitments.
The poster child for wasteful Pentagon spending, which is thankfully already in Elon Musk’s crosshairs, is the F-35 —a $1.7 trillion disaster of delays, breakdowns and runaway costs. The plane, the most expensive military program ever, often sits grounded. The F-35 may be the most obvious example of wasteful Pentagon spending, but it is hardly alone. After all, this is the agency that brought us the $500 toilet seat. Shutting down boondoggles like the F-35 could provide revenue to help pay down the debt and protect those currently dependent on federal programs. It could also help ensure the forthcoming tax bill does not further increase the deficit.
DOGE is not the first effort to identify and eliminate wasteful spending. President Ronald Reagan had the Grace Commission, a sort of DOGE 1.0 that unearthed billions in waste—from the Department of Energy to the IRS. Their findings were buried by entrenched interests and a cowardly Congress. The lesson of the Grace Commission is that reducing even the most obvious wasteful spending requires the courage to stand up to the entrenched interests in both parties that benefit from the current system.
Trump and Musk may have the necessary convictions to make serious changes in the ways Washington works. However, they need to be prepared for the swamp to fight back. Democrats and their allies are already waging war against DOGE. To them, trying to identify and eliminate wasteful spending or even asking federal employees what they actually do is an assault on democracy. Most Democrats will join hawkish Republicans in seeking to protect the Pentagon’s budget. It would not be surprising if Congress’s bipartisan military-industrial complex caucus smeared those advocating cuts in the bloated military budget as “Putin’s puppets.”
The federal debt is growing by approximately $1 trillion every three months. To put that in perspective, consider that the federal debt did not reach the $1 trillion mark until 1981. Unless action is taken soon to reduce spending, pay down the federal debt and roll back the welfare-warfare state—America will face a serious economic crisis. Therefore, it is important that everyone who understands the stakes do what they can to support Trump and Musk’s efforts.
Every time the Republican-controlled legislature considers cutting taxes, the biggest obstacle is the taxpayer-funded lobbyists representing cities, towns, and counties. They come down to the legislature year after year accusing lawmakers of “defunding” local government. And, of course, it is always police, fire, and public safety on the chopping block and never DEI programs, art projects, or other unessential and unnecessary spending projects.
The problem with this narrative is that it is completely false. Cities and towns are flush with cash and have actually received enormous windfalls, not cuts, from the legislature. The result has been hundreds of millions in new revenue for the cities in just the last 6 years. Most of it from two sources—online sales and enhanced state shared revenue.
Online Sales Tax Windfall
In 2019, the legislature passed legislation responding to the Wayfair decision, allowing the state and local governments to tax online sales from sellers outside of this state. At the time, it was sold as a “meager” $85-million-a-year tax increase. But now, five years since the legislation was enshrined into law, taxpayers are doling out over one billion dollars in total collections each year to state and local government…
When Donald Trump assumed the presidency, two allies of the U.S., Israel and Ukraine, were mired in bloody wars with ancient enemies. Both desperately needed more military aid in the effort to defeat their heavily armed foes.
Biden had granted both only enough military aid to enable them to not lose, but not enough to win. Moreover, the arms they received came with the condition that they not be used to inflict serious damage to their enemy. Trump could have helped turn the tide, but instead he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Oct. 7 surprise attack by jihadists on innocent Israelis was just the latest in a centuries long string of atrocities inflicted by Muslim terrorists who devote their lives to killing Jews. Bitter experience had taught Israelis that agreements with terrorists were essentially useless so, for the safety of his people, President Netanyahu resolved to destroy Hamas.
Soon after hostilities began, the Biden government and other erstwhile friends began demanding a cease-fire, thwarting the original war aims. Grief-stricken Israelis understandably became restive over their families and friends being held hostage and demanded negotiations to secure their release.
Yet for terrorists, hostages are a key tactic in waging successful warfare. Because of the sharp contrast in how the two sides value human life, jihadists are able to command one-sided hostage swaps of up to 100 terrorists returned to duty for each civilian exchanged, plus other concessions.
But help was on the way. Our new president posted that none of this would have happened had he been in office and that he would now personally end the conflict. Ignoring the established wisdom of not negotiating with hostage takers, he vowed to apply his famed dealmaking skills to the problem, earning short term praise while simultaneously ensuring that there would be more hostages in the future.
So far, the promises aren’t working out. The war hasn’t ended. Hamas shamefully cheated on the hostage swap, retaining live hostages to maintain pressure on Israel. Worse, the Israelis will almost certainly not be free from the threat of attacks by Hamas and other Iranian proxies.
Meanwhile, Ukraine had suffered an unprovoked attack three years earlier by Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, who correctly surmised that the fearful and weak Biden administration would not provide robust aid and that without U.S. support, “Ukraine could not win a prolonged war against Russia”.
When Trump was elected, victory was at least thinkable with some additional aid because Ukraine’s troops had fought so courageously to defend their nation and their freedom.
Trump, however, saw it differently. This was another dealmaking opportunity. In January, he had told Putin, “We can do it the easy way or the hard way.” Yet a month later he was putting greater pressure on Kyiv to make concessions than on Moscow
When Zelenskyy balked at prospectively agreeing to ultimatums produced by the Trump-Putin negotiations, from which he was excluded, his relationship with Trump cratered. Suddenly, according to Trump, Zelensky was a badly dressed “modestly successful comedian” who had talked Biden out of $350 billion in military aid (a huge exaggeration).
Zelensky was charged with showing insufficient “respect” and “gratefulness” to his new masters. More preposterously, Trump wrote that Zelensky shouldn’t have started the war in the first place, which of course he didn’t do.
Luckily, Trump wrote, “We are successfully negotiating an end to the war with Russia, something all admit only ‘TRUMP’ and the Trump administration can do.” To teach Zelensky a lesson, Trump temporarily shut off all munitions and intelligence aid to Ukrainian troops.
Zelensky is being forced into the defeat option, which had been available to him all along. He stands to lose a big chunk of his country and the goals for which his people sacrificed so much.
Netanyahu was also put in a difficult position by Trump’s “rescue” and the relentless pressure to settle with his oppressors. He can now look forward to a future of more jihadist attacks and more hostage-taking. Tehran and Moscow are reportedly happy with the results.
We may come to regret insisting on domination rather than support of our allies. In a changing world, you can’t have too many friends.
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.
Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a commonsense bill that would have allowed our state to provide voters with same-day election results, moving us further away from the disastrous reporting system that is found when California voters go to their polls. Rather than our current operation of keeping Arizona voters in the dark about certain results of critical election races every two years, this legislation closely mirrored policies and procedures found in the state of Florida, which has largely perfected its vote counting over recent election cycles.
Additionally, my colleagues and I worked closely with a broad coalition of Arizona stakeholders, including most of the state’s county recorders and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors – one of the largest jurisdictions in the entire nation.
This bill was sorely needed in our state. Yet, instead of working with Republicans in good-faith to provide much-needed reforms to our elections processes, Hobbs impeded all efforts to ensure Arizona can report the vast majority of votes on election night. Her veto was a huge mistake – not just politically, but for the future of our state’s elections.
Over the past decade, Arizona has seen a seemingly increasing share of razor-thin election results, which have proved the urgent need for this kind of legislation. In 2016, my good friend Andy Biggs won his primary election for the U.S. House of Representatives by just 27 votes. Outstanding votes were not counted until days after election night concluded, leaving supporters of the top two contenders in suspense. In 2022, current Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes defeated her Republican challenger, Abraham Hamadeh, by fewer than 300 votes. Again, the votes were being processed and tabulated long after election night had come and gone.
In 2024, President Donald Trump was not officially declared the winner of Arizona until days after the election thanks to the myriad of un-tabulated votes after election night. There are many more examples of these kind of delayed calls on critical election races, where voters were left in the dark about the eventual outcomes.
Arizona’s delayed results have embodied more of the nature of California’s failed system in the past decade. Many around the nation shake their heads in disgust at California’s persistent inability to count most votes by the end of election night. Oftentimes, the results for several critical races for different levels of government remain outstanding for weeks, let alone days, following the election. Compare California’s delays with Florida’s successful system, which allows it to report the results of most of its races within hours of all polls closing. There’s no question which system I want my state to emulate.
These delays in our election results lead to massive distrust in our system and officials. Voters deserve and expect maximum transparency when it comes to the elections systems that select the men and women who govern us. However, by making voters wait days after the election has finished, government officials contribute to the rising fear about the integrity of our system. There is a better way.
As a long-time public servant, I was unwilling to stand by and allow the people of Arizona to live in perpetual anxiety every two years when elections rolled around. These voters deserve certainty and transparency in one of the fundamental pillars of our constitutional republic: our sacred votes. That’s why I introduced this bill – SB 1011 / HB 2703 – to speed up vote counting in our state, improve voter confidence and end the frustration felt by many waiting way too long for results on Election Day.
This bill should not have been politicized. I am baffled why, even after a broad coalition around Arizona endorsed these policies, legislative Democrats and Hobbs dug their heels into the ground and opposed our efforts to make reasonable and necessary fixes to the state’s elections system. The Democrats’ partisanship on this bill is not what Arizonans want from their state’s leaders. Republicans and Democrats should be able to work together to solve these issues in a bipartisan manner without resorting to political talking points. Sadly, that is not what happened in this case.
I promised the people of Arizona that this Legislature would be committed to making commonsense and proven changes to our state’s election processes, and my colleagues and I remain wholly resolved to achieve that goal. The status quo for our elections is not an option. Voters deserve more respect than to see their government officials content to leave their state as the laughingstock of the nation for its woefully slow election reporting.
To that end, Republicans in the Arizona Legislature will soon be pursuing a bill to send the question of same-day election results to voters in the next General Election. If Hobbs and Arizona Democrats do not want to be a part of the solution, we will let the voters decide. One way or another, it’s time to bring same-day election results to our great state.
If the Hobbs administration has proven itself to be uniquely skilled at anything over the past two years, it’s incompetence and negligence. But now, Arizona’s governor has taken the next step toward outright fraud.
As a part of her recent budget proposal, Hobbs has asked for a supplemental appropriation to the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) to cover a shortfall in the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD). Without the additional funding, the DDD could run out of money by May, affecting many people under a program that provides services to Arizonans with disabilities.
The problem stems from a COVID-era program funded entirely by the federal government that would pay parents who operate as caregivers for their children with disabilities—the Parents as Paid Caregivers program. The program was intended to be temporary, but Hobbs received approval from the federal government in February 2024 to make it permanent.
That approval came with a catch. Beginning on April 1, the State of Arizona would have to cover 32% of the costs, which Hobbs attempted to get funding for in last year’s budget. Her proposal was not approved by the legislature, which she mutually agreed to as part of the budget process. But she continued funding the program anyway—likely believing that she would be able to flip the legislature in November’s election or bully lawmakers into giving her the money. She failed on both counts and now has created a shortfall in the DDD program that has exceeded $100 million…
