Exactly a century ago this year, the Supreme Court, in its decision in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, recognized the right of parents to direct the education of their children, writing that “[t]he fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children . . . The child is not the mere creature of the state.” Today, just as they did a century ago, parents rely on the courts to serve as a backstop against abusive government policy.
Sadly, some courts in America are shutting the door of justice in the face of parents seeking to vindicate their rights and the rights of their children. In a case out of Wisconsin called Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District in the Seventh Circuit, the federal court of appeals with jurisdiction over cases arising in Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana, parents challenged the school district’s policy directing school officials to hide a child’s “social gender transition” from their parents. As the school told its employees, “parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities.That knowledge must be earned.”
Incredibly, the Seventh Circuit found that the parents’ harm in that case was merely speculative. Apparently, since plaintiffs must show harm to have standing to sue, parents must wait until they find out that their son’s school has been helping him dress as a girl and use the girls’ restroom for six months before they can challenge the policy.
The Supreme Court chose not to review the Seventh Circuit’s decision in that case. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a short dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, explaining that the parents’ harm is not speculative and that “some federal courts are succumbing to the temptation to use the doctrine of Article III standing as a way of avoiding some particularly contentious constitutional questions.”
Nor is this an isolated incident of judges dodging the controversy of gender ideology. The Fourth Circuit, the appeals court with jurisdiction over Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, came to the same conclusion in John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education. A district court in Ohio did the same in Doe v. Pine-Richland School District.
Parents’ fundamental rights to direct the upbringing of their children, and the right of children to be free from ideological indoctrination by school officials, depends on courts that are willing to protect those rights. That is why Advancing American Freedom is filing an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to take up Blake Warner’s challenge to an Eleventh Circuit rule which effectively requires parents to hire a lawyer before they can represent their children’s interests in court. Specifically, while people can bring their own claims in court without a lawyer, and parents can sue on behalf of their children, the Eleventh and some other courts have found that parents cannot sue on behalf of their children without hiring a lawyer. While Mr. Warner’s claim is not related to gender ideology, his challenge to this rule is essential because his success would ensure that parents who are unable to afford an attorney can still seek judicial protection for the rights of their children.
On Jan. 29, President Trump issued an executive order that, among other things, ordered the removal of federal funding from schools that engage in “social transitions of a minor student” and directed the attorney general to work with state and local officials “to enforce the law and file appropriate actions” against school officials who “facilitate the social transition of a minor student.” Trump’s order is important but know that gender ideologues will undoubtedly stage massive resistance. Parents must remain vigilant, and courts must begin to take their claims seriously. The Supreme Court should entrench parents’ rights by taking Mr. Warner’s case and striking down the counsel mandate.
On Monday night, hundreds of protesters organized by the Party for Socialism and Liberation took to the streets of Phoenix. They marched against the mass deportation policy of the Trump administration in front of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office on Central Avenue and the Capitol Museum.
The demonstrators blocked traffic and paraded with obscene signs and Mexican flags. The protests, which included several distinct marches throughout the city, were part of a “Day Without Immigrants,” opposed to the enforcement of U.S. immigration law. AZ Central reported that several incidents of reckless driving near a protest at 43rd Avenue and McDowell Road were observed with at least one person detained by Arizona State Troopers after fireworks were set off in the street. The radical leftist group posted to Instagram on Sunday, “Join us tomorrow to stand against the attacks on our communities. We refuse to let ICE tear apart our families and terrorize our people. Arizona says NO to raids, NO to deportations, NO to family separation!”
AZCentral noted that, among the signs visible, some read: “Families belong together” and “Donald Trump is a racist to all nations,” as well as “No more ICE,” “Don’t bite the hands that feed you,” “We speak for those that can’t” and “Mexicans Aren’t Going Anywhere.”
AZ: decenas de personas se manifiestan justo frente a las instalaciones de ICE en el centro de Phoenix. pic.twitter.com/1f7bQWbrcB
Metro Light Rail service was impacted by the protestors taking over the intersection as they approached Monterey Park, as reported by Arizona Family. ABC15 reported that the intersection was later closed by Phoenix Police responding to “reckless and unsafe” activity there.
Arizona Senator Wendy Rogers posted video of the march in front of the Capitol Museum, referring the gathering to ICE writing, “Hey @ICEgov! Right now. One-stop shop our in front of the @azcapitolmuseum”
Independent journalist ‘The Stu Studio’ posted a video of protestors to X chanting “Chinga La Migra!” which roughly translates to “F**k the Border Patrol,” in front of the ICE field office in Phoenix.
BREAKING: In Arizona, radical protesters have gathered outside the ICE Phoenix Field Office and are chanting the Spanish equivalent of "Fuck the Border Patrol." (Chinga La Migra)
A Phoenix Police Spokesman Sgt. Robert Scherer told AZCentral that Phoenix PD was notified of the protest in advance and had officers monitoring the situation. “The Phoenix Police Department respects the rights of all community members to peacefully express their first amendment rights,” he said in a statement.
“To ensure the safety of our community, resources were organized, and we began to monitor activity related to this event,” said Scherer. “This included working with our partners with the Arizona Department of Public Safety.”
Donald Trump’s renewed pledge to “Make America Great Again” requires nothing less than reigniting economic growth and prosperity. Wealth creation is essential. Yet as Congress prepares to extend and expand upon Trump’s landmark Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, he can take matters into his own hands by issuing an executive order to index capital gains for inflation.
Taxing inflationary “phantom” capital gains is an unfair and ill-advised policy that punishes risk and success.
Consider this: You invest $1,000, and after four years of Joe Biden in the White House, you sell that investment for $1,100. But since inflation raged during Biden’s tenure, the $1,100 you receive will be worth less in real terms than the $1,000 you invested. And yet, under current law, you will pay a tax on your $100 capital “gain.”
Talk about perverse!
“As has been well documented,” writes Alan Auerbach, University of California economist, “realized capital gains may be subject to tax rates that easily exceed 100% of real gains in the presence of inflation.”
But it’s the law. And not only would eliminating it be the fair thing to do for investors, it would ignite a surge of American prosperity.
Eight years ago, the late Treasury economist Gary Robbins estimated that indexing capital gains for inflation would, by 2025, create an additional 400,000 jobs, grow the U.S. capital stock by $1.1 trillion and boost GDP by roughly $500 billion. Because capital gains were never indexed, average household income today is $3,600 lower than it could have been otherwise.
However, it’s never too late to start doing the right thing.
Congress has repeatedly toyed with indexing capital gains. In fact, indexing capital gains used to be a bipartisan issue. In the early 1990s, congressional Democrats touted indexing as an effective way to boost economic growth and benefit workers.
“If we really want to increase growth,” said a youthful Chuck Schumer, the then-future Senate minority leader, “there are proposals that we can do. I would be for indexing all capital gains, savings and borrowings.”
Having mastered the ways of the D.C. swamp, Schumer now opposes indexing capital gains. Listen to Congressman Schumer, not Senator Swamp.
Indeed, as Trump emphasized in 2019, “Indexing is something that a lot of people have liked for a long time. It’s something that would be very easy to do. It’s something that I am certainly thinking about.”
Looking forward, the Congressional Budget Office estimated last month that federal capital gains tax receipts will total $2.8 trillion over the decade ahead. If only one-fourth of those tax receipts—a conservative estimate—are due to taxing phantom gains, American taxpayers will pay $700 billion in taxes on income that doesn’t exist.
Opponents of capital gains indexation say the subsequent revenue loss would be too great. But inasmuch as inflationary gains should not have been taxed in the first place, a revenue loss is a good thing. It represents the correction of a tax injustice.
The second-order effects that Robbins documents should remove any reservations based on revenue loss. Without the federal tax on inflationary gains, asset prices will adjust until they reach a new, higher equilibrium. Investors will see their portfolios appreciate bigly.
It’s a safe bet that millions of American investors and pensioners would choose a Dow Jones average of 50,000 with indexation over a Dow Jones average of 44,500 without indexation.
As taxpayers realize real capital gains, the federal government will collect billions of dollars in new tax revenue. Federal tax revenue may ultimately be higher with indexation, not lower.
There is the question of whether Trump has the legal authority to issue an executive order instructing the Treasury secretary to issue new regulations indexing the capital gains cost basis for inflation. It comes down to whether the governing Internal Revenue Code section covering the definition of the word “cost” is sufficiently ambiguous to allow regulatory reinterpretation. Congress never specifically mandated that “cost” was to be determined in nominal terms, nor did it prohibit the use of real valuation.
According to a watershed 2012 paper by Charles Cooper and Vincent Colatriano in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, “jurisprudential developments over the last two decades have confirmed . . . that Treasury has regulatory authority to index capital gains for inflation.” With that justification, Trump has little reason to hold back.
James Carter is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and a principal with Navigators Global. He previously headed President Donald Trump’s tax team during the 2016-17 transition and served as a deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for then-President George W. Bush.
During his campaign and since taking office, President Donald Trump often repeated his desire to bring back the same “drill, baby, drill” oil and gas agenda that characterized his first term in office.
But that term began 8 long years ago and much has changed in the domestic oil business since then. Current market realities are likely to mitigate the industry’s response to Trump’s easing of the Biden administration’s efforts to restrict its activities.
Trump’s second term begins as the upstream segment of the industry has enjoyed three years of strong profitability and overall production growth by employing a strategy of capital discipline, technology deployment and the capture of economies of scale in the nation’s big shale play areas. Companies like, say, ExxonMobil and Oxy and their peers are unlikely to respond to the easing of government regulations by discarding these strategies that have brought such financial success in favor of moving into a new drilling boom.
This bias in favor of maintenance of the status quo is especially likely given that the big shale plays in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, Bakken Shale, Haynesville and the Marcellus/Utica region have all advanced into the long-term development phases of the natural life cycle typical of every oil and gas resource play over the past 175 years. Absent the discovery of major new shale or other types of oil-or-natural gas-bearing formations, a new drilling boom seems quite unlikely under any circumstances.
One market factor that could result in a somewhat higher active rig count would be a sudden rise in crude oil prices, if it appears likely to last for a long period of time. Companies like Exxon, Chevron, Oxy and Diamondback Energy certainly have the capability to quickly activate a significant number of additional rigs to take advantage of long-term higher prices.
But crude prices are set on a global market, and that market has appeared over-supplied in recent months with little reason to believe the supply/demand equation will change significantly in the near future. Indeed, the OPEC+ cartel has been forced to postpone planned production increases several times over the past 12 months as an over-supplied market has caused prices to hover well below the group’s target price.
But it is wrong to think the domestic oil industry will not respond in any way to Trump’s efforts to remove Biden’s artificial roadblocks to energy progress. Trump’s efforts to speed up permitting for energy projects of all kinds are likely to result in a significant build-out of much-needed new natural gas pipeline capacity, natural gas power generation plants and new LNG export terminals and supporting infrastructure.
Instead of another four years of “drill, baby, drill,” the Trump efforts to speed energy development seem certain to result in four years of a “build, baby, build” boom.
Indeed, the industry is already responding in a big way in the LNG export sector of the business. During Trump’s first week in office, LNG exporter Venture Global launched what is the largest energy IPO by value in U.S. history, going public with a total market cap of $65 billion.
With five separate export projects currently in various stages of development, all in South Louisiana, Venture Global plans to become a major player in one of America’s major growth industries in the coming years. Trump’s Day 1 reversal of Biden’s senseless permitting pause on LNG infrastructure is likely to kick off a number of additional LNG projects by other operators.
The Trump effect took hold even before he took office when the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation entered into an exclusive agreement in early January with developer Glenfarne to advance the $44 billion Alaska LNG project. The aim is to start to deliver gas in 2031, with LNG exports following shortly thereafter.
America’s oil and gas industry has demonstrated it can consistently grow overall production to new records even with a falling rig count in recent years. Now it must grow its related infrastructure to account for the rising production.
That’s why Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” mantra is likely to transform into “build, baby, build” in the months and years to come.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Attorney General Kris Mayes wants to hire the federal prosecutors behind former President Joe Biden’s January 6 investigations.
On Sunday, Mayes put out an offer to hire those prosecutors, as well as any other federal agents that may be terminated in the Trump administration’s newly-launched review of all involved in January 6 investigations.
“My message to all FBI agents and federal prosecutors who are being wrongfully fired by Trump: come see me about a job,” said Mayes. “We are hiring at the AZ Attorney General’s office and we actually support law enforcement.”
My message to all FBI agents and federal prosecutors who are being wrongfully fired by Trump: come see me about a job. We are hiring at the AZ Attorney General’s office and we actually support law enforcement. https://t.co/hGhRjusTWv
Last Friday, Department of Justice (DOJ) leadership sent a memo ordering the immediate firing of all federal prosecutors who oversaw the January 6 cases.
Emil Bove — the acting deputy attorney general — also ordered acting FBI director Brian Driscoll to hand over the names of all FBI employees involved in the January 6 cases.
“I do not believe that the current leadership of the Justice Department can trust these FBI employees to assist in implementing the President’s agenda faithfully,” explained Bove in his correspondence.
However, Driscoll refused perThe Washington Times. Driscoll said the request pertained to himself and “thousands” of other employees within the agency. Driscoll’s refusal occurred over the weekend as FBI agents involved in the case against Trump over the Mar-a-Lago classified documents were removed from field offices in New York, Miami, and Washington, D.C.
This wouldn’t be the first instance of Mayes’ office scouting of those ousted for their work in the Biden administration. Their offices are also considering law school graduates whose offers of employment from the Biden administration were rescinded by the Trump administration.
Chief Deputy Attorney General Daniel Barr announced Mayes’ interest in hiring those sought out by the prior Democrat-led administration on LinkedIn last week.
“Plenty of opportunities at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office for recent law school graduates whose job offers were recently rescinded by the Department of Justice,” said Barr. “We do vital and interesting work in protecting, and pursuing justice for, the state of Arizona and its people.”
Another key player caught up by the Democratic Party’s unsuccessful bid for a consecutive presidential term has already found a soft landing within Mayes’ office.
The attorney general’s office recently hired the Arizona communications director for Kamala Harris’ campaign, Delaney Corcoran; she is now serving in a similar deputy communications position.
Although Mayes has indicated an eagerness to hire those ousted by the Trump administration, she is also fighting to keep them within the federal government.
On Monday, Mayes joined 11 other Democratic attorneys general in urging the two million-plus federal employees tapped by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for a “deferred resignation program” to contact their unions for guidance.
The deferred resignation program would enable the tapped employees to receive their regular pay and benefits through the end of September — but only if they enter by voluntarily resigning ahead of the Thursday deadline. Otherwise, OPM warned, they may be part of the next administration purge and not be eligible for the extended pay and benefits period.
Mayes called the program “completely unreliable” and possibly “unenforceable” in a press release.
“My office will do everything in our power to protect Arizona workers and we urge you to follow your union’s guidance,” said Mayes. “This so-called buyout offer is yet another attack that will cripple the critical federal services Arizonans rely on.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
