Governor Hobbs Thumbs Nose At Election Integrity And American Manufacturing

Governor Hobbs Thumbs Nose At Election Integrity And American Manufacturing

by | May 18, 2023 | Opinion

By Ken Blackwell |

The integrity of our electoral process is vital to maintaining the foundations of democracy. Reliable and secure voting machines play a crucial role in the faith, trust, and confidence of our elections. Knowing and understanding this, the Arizona Legislature just passed HB 2613, which would have mandated voting machines used in state elections be made in America. Furthermore, this legislation would have required all those voting machines to have 100% of their parts and components sourced and assembled in the U.S.

Unfortunately for the people of Arizona, Governor Hobbs vetoed the legislation. In doing so, she turned her back on American manufacturing and election integrity.

The call for products to be made in America is not new. In fact, during his State of the Union address in 2023, President Biden emphasized the importance of domestic manufacturing, highlighting how American-made products would benefit the country’s economy and ensure national security. The proposed legislation in Arizona would have aligned with this vision, as it promoted the manufacturing of voting machines in the U.S., creating jobs and strengthening the domestic industry while simultaneously enhancing election security.

One of the primary benefits of requiring voting machines to be made in America is that it enhances election security. By mandating that all components are sourced and manufactured in the U.S., the legislation would have ensured that voting machines are built to the highest security standards, making them less susceptible to hacking, interference, and tampering. And if history is any guide and issues arise with machines on Election Day, it is much easier to find out what happened if the voting machine manufacturing plant is located in Buckeye and not Beijing. It also would have guaranteed transparency in the manufacturing process and ensured that any potential vulnerabilities could be addressed before the machines were used for elections. 

Moreover, American-made voting machines would have given voters greater confidence in the electoral process, particularly at a time when concerns about election integrity are rising. By increasing transparency and accountability, these machines would help to alleviate doubts and promote trust in the democratic process.

Finally, the legislation would have allowed for a transition period before full implementation, ensuring a smooth transition and minimizing any potential disruptions to the electoral process. This provision would have ensured sufficient time for voting machine manufacturers to meet the new requirements, which would have minimized the impact on existing voting systems.

Requiring voting machines used in Arizona to be made in America is a sensible move that benefits everyone. By enhancing election security, increasing transparency, promoting domestic manufacturing, and supporting the American economy, this legislation would have represented a significant step toward ensuring the integrity of the democratic process. As President Biden emphasized in his State of the Union address, everything made in America benefits the country. Clearly, Governor Hobbs’ veto signals she does not support American workers, American manufacturing, or election integrity. The real question Arizonans have to ask is, “Why?”

Ken Blackwell serves as Chairman, Center for Election Integrity for the America First Policy Institute (AFPI).

Mesa Public Schools Leaves Out Parents

Mesa Public Schools Leaves Out Parents

by | May 18, 2023 | Opinion

By Rachel Walden |

Many are surprised to learn that Mesa Public Schools (Unified District #4) has had a co-ed option for restrooms, locker rooms, and overnight facilities since 2015. The district leadership at the time quietly developed a Transgender Support Plan for children. This includes choosing which facilities the child wants to use along with a new name and new pronouns. This plan involves no parental consent or parental notification.

Due to public comment and internal questions, Board President Hutchinson, under the guidance of Superintendent Fourlis, asked for a legal opinion from the Board’s counsel, Udall Shumway. A brief memo was placed on the agenda for the meeting May 9, 2023, and Udall Shumway determined that the Transgender Guidelines stand.

In the meeting I asked about the criteria for a child to be placed on this plan. Kacey King, the district’s counsel said, “for younger children a teacher or counselor might suggest that they put it into writing.” I was shocked at this statement. This is absolutely not the role of teachers or counselors. I have been told that school counselors are simply there to determine what barriers exist that may prohibit classroom learning. 

To have a counselor or teacher help put a child on a Transgender Support Plan is simply wrong, particularly without any communication with the parents. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that parents possess the fundamental right to direct the upbringing, education, and health care of their children. This right does not belong to any school or staff. Public school offers a service to the community—a service to teach children the academic standards to prepare them for a future to be able to be confident and self-reliant adults. Schools need to stay in their lane if they are going to retain public trust. 

Opportunities exist for children to develop personal relationships with counselors and without parental consent. In one such example, the district had an elementary school student who was struggling in math. She would ask to see the counselor during the math lesson. Her mother was never notified because they weren’t official counseling sessions. The mother eventually found out when she confronted the school about her daughter’s below average math performance. No one previously told her that her daughter was behind in math or that she was visiting with a counselor.

Counselors may also have informal visits with children who don’t want to go to lunch or recess with their classmates and decide to visit with a counselor instead. Perhaps a child opens up about personal struggles, then the option exists for that trusted authority figure to guide the child to complete a private Transgender Support Plan. How would the parents know?

There is no other program or plan in the district that is comparable in secrecy or purpose to the Transgender Support Plan. Specialized learning plans, after school clubs, field trips, photographs, all require parental consent. Yet, a student can be given a new identity, and no one will notify the parents? 

The main legal justification for these guidelines right now stems from the 9th Circuit case Parents for Privacy v Barr. The court ruled against parental rights, ruled against freedom of religion, and ruled against privacy. I have spoken to attorneys who believe this ruling will be overturned. In the meantime, one of the best courses of action is to make sure our parents are informed. There is no legal argument against notifying parents about a child discussing “gender identity” or any other such topics at school. In fact, the law is on the side of the parents. I will continue this fight for parental rights and transparency.

Rachel Walden is a member of the Mesa Public Schools Governing Board. You can follow her on Twitter here.

How Leftists Hide Sex Changes In Abortion Bills

How Leftists Hide Sex Changes In Abortion Bills

by | May 16, 2023 | Opinion

By Cathi Herrod |

What does abortion have to do with the transgender movement? Nothing. But leftist activists are trying to convince us that abortion includes so-called “gender-affirming care.” Planned Parenthood and others have been pushing the message over social media and elsewhere in an effort to get people used to the idea. Why? One reason is that Planned Parenthood admits it is the second largest provider of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in the country. Read their own documentation here. And read these two reports that reveal the lucrative connection between the abortion giant and the transgender movement.

But it is also building their culture of death and destruction. I’m not saying they all see it that way, but pushing for abortion up to birth and the physical and psychological destruction of teens and even pre-teens in the name of “equality” is evil.

Polls show a large percentage of Americans do not support transitioning children with hormones or surgeries. So, leftists are hiding it in ballot measures and writing it into laws. In Ohio (potentially on the 2023 ballot) and Michigan (passed in 2022), the abortion ballot measures are so deceitfully written, it takes an attorney to figure out that both measures would allow abortion up to birth and include sex changes for children without parental consent. Read them here and here.

I will use italics below to indicate the language they use to underhandedly include sex changes, even for minors.

Ohio’s measure uses the term individual to covertly include children, and “reproductive decisions… not limited to … abortion” to covertly include sex-changes. If this was an abortion measure, it would just say that, and it wouldn’t include this kind of language that other states are defining as so-called “gender-affirming care” and courts will look to for direction.

Michigan’s constitutional amendment calls reproductive freedom a right and includes sterilization but is not limited to abortion. It, too, uses the term individual instead of woman or adult to ensure even children can get abortions or sex changes without parental consent.

Ohio’s and Michigan’s measures read a bit like Oregon’s proposed law and Colorado’s recently signed laws. Read here and here to see how the news media are using the Left’s language, and how the definition of reproductive freedom/decisions are being defined to include so-called “gender-affirming care.”

In very progressive states like New York, the abortion industry can get away with spelling it out in plain language, “… rights to an individual based on their ‘pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” It includes ethnicity, disability, age, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” The key words here say it all and will be used to set a standard for defining “reproductive healthcare/freedom” or “reproductive decision” throughout the country.

Maryland, same thing. The measure uses “reproductive freedom” instead of abortion, not just to make it sound better to voters, but so they can include sex changes. It calls “reproductive freedom” a fundamental right and says that right includes ending a pregnancy but is not limited to abortion. It goes on to ensure individuals (not just adults) have a right to reproductive liberty. So, although Maryland didn’t write it out as blatantly as New York, the language it did use allows the same thing: abortion to birth and sex changes, even for children.

Also, in states that are moderate or conservative, the abortion industry includes a limitation to abortion, but then takes it all back with near universal exemptions. More on that below.

  • So, when you see “reproductive healthcare/freedom/liberty,” “autonomy,” “reproductive decisions,” or “not limited to…” think sex-change drugs and surgeries. Because that’s how the courts will read it.
  • If the language uses “individual” or “person,” think no age limit; it includes children at any age for both abortion and sex changes.
  • If the abortion language sets a limit at viability or some other gestational age, check the exceptions! These ballot measures include exceptions for the “health of the mother.” Courts have interpreted that phrase to include emotional or mental health, and thereby allow abortions at any stage if the woman simply feels distressed. This has always been understood to mean no limits up to birth if the woman wants it, and the abortionist (self-servingly) signs off.

It’s there, but it takes a skilled attorney to connect the dots. The abortion industry knows most Americans do not support sex-change surgeries in state law, especially for children. And most Americans also do not support abortion up to birth. The industry knows these facts—that is exactly why they use crafty language to hide such extreme policies under vague wording and then redefine that language elsewhere.

One more thing: They will always cloak the measure in the nicest title:

  • “The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety”
  • “Equal Protection of Law Amendment”
  • “Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment”

Cathi Herrod is the president of Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), a nonprofit advocacy organization committed to promoting and defending the foundational principles of life, marriage and family, and religious freedom.

The Climate Change Movement Is Massive And Dangerous

The Climate Change Movement Is Massive And Dangerous

by | May 13, 2023 | Opinion

By John Huppenthal |

Dr. Thomas Patterson’s “Climate Change Alarmism Is Not Supported by the Facts” on April 28 was very well done, accurately summarizing the Climate Change movement as an issue distracting us with predictions of catastrophe.

Citing published experts, the column rebutted critical points of the climate movement’s argument: forest fires, hurricanes, malnutrition from agricultural damage, the threat to polar bears, and the economic impact. Patterson pointed out that forest fire losses are much lower now than in the past, hurricane landfalls are fewer, not more; polar bear populations are at their highest levels in 60 years, and the economic damage predicted from global warming is tiny.

That’s all we need to know—the essence of the argument proving the entire premise of doom false. You can get lost in the weeds focusing on too much. But no matter how powerful, a single column doesn’t do this subject justice. The climate movement is massive and dangerous. Composed of four different strands:

  1. Some in the movement see climate as the tool to advance our journey to a communist state.
  2. Some, like Ted Turner, exemplify a “biocentric” strand with his desire to reduce the world population by 7.5 billion.
  3. Another group sees the movement as an opportunity to gain power and money. 
  4. A final group genuinely believes the global warming crisis will destroy humanity.

We’re in a four-front war. All intend to impoverish our families if we take their words at face value. Others want to see us and our children dead or at least gone.  

The climate movement has endless stories to fuel its “narrative.” For example, in 2012, drought hit Missouri hard, with corn production down 42 percent. Stories like this happen every year. It’s the nature of the weather. So, we must relentlessly supply the counter-narrative, one based on facts. Geological records show that, long before the industrial CO2 era, the Sahel region in Africa suffered a drought that lasted for hundreds of years. Climate change and weather have always been with us. In this instance, we can also point to United Nations data showing that current world cereal crop production (corn, wheat, soybeans, barley, oats, rye) is at a record. Fewer people are starving than ever before.

Further, it’s possible that not even a shred of the Green House Gas theory is correct. The idea: added Carbon Dioxide traps more solar radiation, further warming the oceans. Added ocean warming then releases more water vapor which also traps heat, amplifying the Green House Gas effect of CO2. NASA is testing this theory. At a cost of over $8 billion, we have put seven highly sophisticated measurement devices into orbit around the earth, devices called CERES. These devices began measuring solar radiation and the earth’s reflected radiation in 2000. We have over twenty years of measuring incoming and outgoing radiation to determine the theory’s correctness. Result? Not as the climate movement predicted and believes. Outgoing radiation is not only ever so slightly higher than incoming radiation, but the trend is also further negative at a time when CO2 emissions have been increasing rapidly and significantly. We are cooling—slightly. At least that’s what the $8 billion CERES instruments say.

Those instruments say we are losing heat, not gaining heat. Outgoing radiation is higher than incoming radiation, and the difference is trending even more negatively. The opposite of what the Green House Gas theory predicts. Based on these measurements, we need more CO2, not less.

So, where is the heat coming from? We know where it comes from in Maricopa County. With a population of over 1.7 million households and over 2 million tons of asphalt and 40 million tons of concrete, we have effectively eliminated winter by creating an urban heat island—an island that has made us the number one population growth county out of over 3,000 counties in the U.S. Urban heat islands have also rendered temperature measurements worldwide questionable. But, even with this huge effect, our record temperature remains 1990: 122 degrees—33 years ago. And March 2023 was our coldest March in 30 years.

Another big issue: is CO2 a pollutant? We know from experience and experiments that CO2 is not toxic to human beings. Crews live in submarines and the International Space Station for many months, with CO2 levels above 4,000 ppm CO2. By comparison, we won’t be up to 1,200 ppm for 300 years at current trends. They’ve even done experiments with CO2 at 40,000 ppm for weeks. They saw no ill effects in their measurements. The OSHA standard is 5,000 ppm. From a health standpoint, CO2 is not a pollutant, even though the climate movement would like us to confuse it with deadly carbon monoxide.

Just how completely wrong is the climate movement? Numerous research studies show the benefit of higher levels of CO2 for crops and forest growth. Because CO2 is essential for photosynthesis, below 150 ppm, all plant and human life would end. CO2 accelerates plant growth as it increases from 150 ppm until it hits 1,200 ppm, a level our atmosphere won’t see for 300 years at current trends. These benefits are immense. The CO2 growth dividend at 1,200 parts per million is an extra 150% over preindustrial levels of 280 ppm. That’s a lot of corn, wheat, barley, oats, and rye.

The climate movement is not going to quit without a fight. An estimated $630 billion is now being devoted worldwide to climate change spending on an annual basis—$60 billion for research alone. Not satisfied, the climate movement is looking at a bigger pot of loot, the so-called carbon tax. But it’s not a carbon tax. That always was a falsehood. It’s a tax on gasoline and electricity. They call it a carbon tax because they don’t want the middle class to know that they intend to increase taxes on them, a lot. The U.S. average price of gasoline stands at $3.71. But the average price in Europe is $7.67 per gallon. That difference of $3.96 per gallon applied to U.S. sales is a wallet-busting $500 billion per year out of the pockets of people making less than $40 per hour and into the pockets of people making more than $50 per hour.

This is going to be the proverbial fight to the death.

John Huppenthal was the Arizona Superinterndent of Public Instruction from 2011-2015. Prior to this role, John served as a member of the Arizona State Senate and the Arizona House of Representatives. You can follow him on Twitter here.