by Corinne Murdock | Dec 7, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
While boarding his flight to Arizona on Tuesday, President Joe Biden shared that he wasn’t visiting the border because it wasn’t important.
Biden told Fox News reporter Peter Doocy that focusing on American manufacturing was a bigger priority for him. He visited the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) plant as part of his visit.
“[T]here are more important things going on,” stated Biden. “They’re going to invest billions of dollars in a new enterprise.”
AZ Free News noted earlier this week that Tuesday’s visit marked the president’s first to Arizona since assuming office. The president has overlooked the state despite being an epicenter for the ongoing border crisis.
Biden’s disinterest in the southern border is further evident in his public messaging. Over this past year, he’s expressed more concern for Ukraine’s border than our own.
The last time the president tweeted about the southern border was to condemn border agents’ handling of illegal Haitian immigrants.
Biden isn’t the only Democrat who believes domestic microchip manufacturing outweighs other issues. Sens. Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema both ignored controversies over the FBI raid on former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home. Instead, the pair focused on the passage of the CHIPS and Science Act.
Only Kelly attended the TSMC celebration on Tuesday.
The border crisis only continues to worsen, with leadership shirking responsibility or jumping ship entirely. Chris Magnus, Tucson’s former police chief, resigned from his position as commissioner of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) last month.
Vice President Kamala Harris came close to visiting the site of the border crisis once, last June, after much resistance.
Since Biden took office, there have been over 4.1 million encounters with illegal immigrants (this total excludes “gotaways,” those who weren’t apprehended, for which no accurate data exists). That’s more than the total encounters under Trump and former President Barack Obama’s second term combined (about 3.9 million).
Based on average encounters at this rate, there will be over 8.8 million illegal immigrants encountered throughout Biden’s first term. That’s more than Trump, Obama, and the last two years of former President George Bush combined (about 7.9 million).
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Dec 2, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Governor Doug Ducey shared on Thursday that he and 20 other governors petitioned Congress to end the Biden administration’s military vaccine mandate.
The 21-member coalition, led by Tennessee Governor Bill Lee through the Republican Governors Association (RGA), urged congressional leadership in a letter to end the vaccine mandate implemented by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin last August. The coalition noted that more service members were leaving than were being recruited.
“The Biden vaccine mandate on our military creates a national security risk that severely impacts our defense capabilities abroad and our state readiness here at home,” stated the coalition.
In October, the National Guard and Army disclosed that they missed their recruiting target by 10 and 25 percent, respectively. Last month, the Armed Forces revealed that they’ve discharged 8,000 members since implementing the vaccine mandate.
The governors warned that the falling National Guard forces would hinder natural disaster and emergency operations in their states. The coalition reminded the congressional leaders that President Joe Biden told 60 Minutes that “the pandemic is over” in September. However, multiple, anonymous White House officials attempted to walk back Biden’s statement through interviews with mainstream outlets favored by the administration like Politico and Washington Post.
READ THE RGA LETTER HERE
In addition to Ducey and Lee, Governors Kay Ivey (Alabama), Asa Hutchinson (Arkansas), Ron DeSantis (Florida), Brad Little (Idaho), Eric Holcomb (Indiana), Kim Reynolds (Iowa), Tate Reeves (Mississippi), Mike Parson (Missouri), Greg Gianforte (Montana), Pete Ricketts (Nebraska), Chris Sununu (New Hampshire), Doug Burgum (North Dakota), Kevin Stitt (Oklahoma), Henry McMaster (South Carolina), Kristi Noem (South Dakota), Greg Abbott (Texas), Spencer Cox (Utah), Glenn Youngkin (Virginia), and Mark Gordon (Wyoming) signed the letter.
Seven RGA members that didn’t sign onto the letter were Governors Brian Kemp (Georgia), Larry Hogan (Maryland), Charlie Baker (Massachusetts), Ralph Torres (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), Mike Dewine (Ohio), Phil Scott (Vermont), and Jim Justice (West Virginia).
Though Ducey issued support on this issue to end the military vaccine mandate, it’s unlikely it will be a priority for his successor. Governor-elect Katie Hobbs praised the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate last September in a statement to the Arizona Mirror.
“Vaccines are our best path to defeat this pandemic and keep our economy open. This is the right move to protect Arizonans and our economic recovery,” stated Hobbs.
In mid-October, Hobbs indicated in a campaign press release that she was supportive of sweeping vaccine mandates. Hobbs’ campaign did so by highlighting excerpts from a CNN opinion piece denouncing her Republican opponent, Kari Lake, for opposing vaccine mandates.
However, just days later, Hobbs signaled neutrality on the subject of requiring the COVID-19 vaccine for K-12 attendance. Hobbs told C-SPAN that she hadn’t considered whether or not children should be required to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in order to attend school.
In April, Ducey signed HB2498 into law, prohibiting state and local governments from mandating the COVID-19 vaccine.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Terri Jo Neff | Nov 27, 2022 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
Several federal government defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit recently filed by Gov. Doug Ducey in his attempt to determine who has jurisdiction over land near the border within the State of Arizona.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Forest Service and its Chief Randy Moore, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and its Commissioner Camille Calimlim, and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Thomas J. Vilsack argued in the motion that Ducey’s actions on U.S. lands “directly conflict” with numerous federal laws.
The motion to dismiss also argues that Arizona’s concurrent jurisdiction to land at the border does not convey a right for Ducey to occupy and use federal lands without federal authority. As a result, the State of Arizona must yield to the United States’ plenary authority over the lands, the motion argues.
Ducey will have an opportunity to respond to the motion to dismiss, after which U.S. District Senior Judge David Campbell will likely hold oral arguments in early 2023.
Also on Wednesday, Campbell granted the Center for Biological Diversity permissive intervention, finding the group has defenses to Ducey’s lawsuit “that share with the main action a common question of law or fact — whether the federal government may act with respect to the border lands of Arizona, including in the enforcement of federal environmental statutes.”
However, Campbell issued a warning to attorneys for the Center that the purpose of granting intervenor status “is not to convert this case into an environmental enforcement action or launch into broad ranging discovery on environmental issues.”
Instead, the purposed is to enable Intervenor to provide input on the claims and issues raised by Ducey. The judge further noted he will hold the Center “to its commitment not to unduly complicate this case, delay the proceedings, inject irrelevant issues, or repeat arguments made by the federal defendants.”
The Center has until Dec. 2 to file an answer in the case.
Ducey filed the six-claim lawsuit in October in an attempt to have the U.S. District Court determine important questions of law regarding jurisdiction over land near the border within the State of Arizona and the state’s own interests in protecting itself in the face of the crisis brought on by countless migrants illegally crossing unsecured areas of the border without action by the federal government.
The inaction of the Biden administration has resulted in “a mix of drug, crime, and humanitarian issues the State has never experienced at such a significant magnitude,” according to Ducey’s lawsuit.
Before filing the lawsuit, Arizona officials pleaded many time with the Biden administration to act, “but such pleas have been either ignored, dismissed, or unreasonably delayed,” the lawsuit notes. “Rather than cooperate and work together with Arizona, the federal government has taken a bureaucratic and adversarial role.”
Ducey responded to this inaction by directing that some gaps in the border wall be temporarily filled with double-stacked storage containers that will help control movement along the border.
The move got the attention of the White House, which now claims Ducey and the State do not have authority to undertake these types of protective actions. The six-claim lawsuit seeks answers to the authority of a governor to issue a state of emergency to protect the lives and welfare of Arizona citizens and their property.
In response to the lawsuit, the Center filed a motion earlier this month seeking to intervene in the case as a defendant along with the named federal defendants.
The Center contends the temporary barriers put into place by the State will block animal migratory paths as well as streams and washes. It also claims the temporary barrier effort will “trash the Sonoran Desert and public lands” while doing nothing “to prevent people or drugs from crossing the border.”
But the Center also alleges Ducey’s border barrier project is “part of a larger strategy of ongoing border militarization” that ignores damage to “human rights, civil liberties, native lands, local businesses, and international relations.”
Ducey opposed the intervention effort by the Center, while the federal defendants took no position on intervention, except that it be a permissive and not by-right status which can be discontinued by the Court if deemed necessary.
by Kevin Gemeroy | Nov 16, 2022 | Opinion
By Kevin Gemeroy |
I was born and raised in Seattle, Washington. I went to high school, and college, and started my business there. We were the fourth generation of our family to live in West Seattle where we founded and operated local businesses. Over the last 80 years, my family has founded four companies, employed hundreds of people, and created opportunities for many others to grow and succeed.
On August 5, 2020, we made the gut-wrenching decision to leave. That was the day that Washington’s Governor, Jay Inslee, proclaimed that it was “unsafe” for children to attend school in the state, extending our school closures indefinitely. Our school reopening guidelines were the among the strictest in the nation, and even most private schools (including our son’s) remained closed until further notice. Our boys were three and six at the time, and we expected another lockdown through the winter would do far more damage to our collective mental and physical health than COVID ever would.
Shortly after Governor Inslee’s press conference ended, we started packing. A few days later, we put 14 suitcases and duffle bags on an airplane and headed out to spend a year in the Sonoran Desert. As our son started in Scottsdale Public Schools, the battle between the districts, unions, and Governor Ducey were in full swing. After yet another week of “iPad school,” we began frantically looking for a private school that would guarantee an in-person education to our first grader.
We found an opening at a nearby for-profit private school and enrolled our boys on the spot. Within a few weeks, we heard from our older son’s teachers that he wasn’t learning normally. Initially, we dismissed their concerns, assuming they were caused by the impacts of Seattle’s hard lockdown and our extended school closures.
They gently pressed, and we agreed to seek a reading evaluation through a local clinic. The results were all over the place, so we were referred to a local neuropsychologist. Our son underwent two days of intensive testing which finally led us to the answer: he is gifted, has mixed dyslexia, and an ADHD (inattentive type) diagnosis would likely follow after he turned seven.
The number one recommendation was that our son would need to be in a private school long-term. The neuropsychologist described the challenges involved in getting an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and 504 plan, especially with a twice-exceptional child, where the giftedness often hides the disability. Our son would need small class sizes and individualized attention, as he would likely struggle in a public school classroom.
Our for-profit private school bent over backwards to accommodate his needs. They allowed him to continue to attend school through his eight-week, half-day intensive dyslexia treatment program so he could maintain the relationships in his class and participate in Spanish, PE, and STEM. His teacher taught his classmates about learning differences, so they’d approach our son with acceptance and curiosity instead of judgment. They approved his providers’ recommended accommodations without hesitation. They welcomed, loved, and supported our child, regardless of his learning differences.
One year later, our son is reading a grade level above his age thanks in part to the three weekly sessions with a reading specialist provided by his school. Three months into third grade, he no longer needs specialized support and is able to operate independently in an accelerated classroom environment.
Our journey was a privileged one. We had school choice, albeit across state lines. We had access to top private clinics and specialists. We used a combination of health insurance, HSA funds, and savings to cover the over $50,000 cost to remediate our son’s dyslexia and provide him with a private school education that met his unique needs. Very few families can afford this on their own.
Washington State has the exact education system that the teachers’ unions advocate for: strong and well-funded public schools. Seattle spends over $23,000 per child per year on school and teachers make around $100,000 on average. Every bond measure placed on the ballot gets approved overwhelmingly.
But choices are strictly limited – well-funded public school or very-expensive private school. Teachers’ unions have unfettered power to lobby the politicians for whatever they want. In response, over 30 percent of parents have pulled their kids out of Seattle Public Schools in neighborhoods where their families can afford to in just the past three years.
My family came to Arizona because of school choice. We stayed because our kids’ needs were met here. We’ve seen a union-first school system firsthand, and COVID revealed its shortcomings. In Arizona, we are leading the nation in building a child-first system, founded on universal ESAs.
As we hear Governor-Elect Katie Hobbs repeat her union supporters’ lines about Arizona’s school system and her criticism of the ESA program, please remember my family’s story of how a great Arizona private school and our school choice programs changed our son’s life and story for the better.
Every family should be able to choose the school that meets their kids’ unique needs, just like we did.
Kevin Gemeroy was recognized as Washington State’s Mr. Future Business Leader in 1998 and as a Puget Sound Business Journal’s 40 under 40 honoree in 2018. He and his wife reside in Scottsdale during the school year with their two twice-exceptional boys. You can follow Kevin on Twitter here.
by Corinne Murdock | Oct 19, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The Biden administration ordered Governor Doug Ducey to remove the shipping containers filling in border wall gaps, but it doesn’t look like either of them are budging.
In the Department of the Interior (DOI) letter, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Regional Director Jacklynn Gould claimed that Ducey’s action was a trespass against the country and was harming federal lands and resources. Gould said that the containers were in the way of the federal government’s efforts to close the border gaps.
“The unauthorized placement of those containers constitutes a violation of federal law and is a trespass against the United States,” stated Gould. “That trespass is harming federal lands and resources and impeding Reclamation’s ability to perform its mission.”
Even if Ducey moved all of the 122 shipping containers tomorrow, the federal government wouldn’t begin border wall construction immediately. Prior to any wall building, the Biden administration would have to conduct an environmental stewardship review. Such a process usually takes well over a year.
As of press time, September border crossings weren’t publicized. If border encounters under Biden continue at the present average rate of over 183,000 illegal encounters a month, there will be over 8.6 million border encounters by the end of his term. That’s over 5,900 illegal immigrants a day.
Ducey began closing border wall gaps in mid-August. It took the state 11 days to complete five gaps spanning over 3,800 feet, costing $6 million total. The Biden administration spent an estimated $3 million every day to not complete the border wall contracted by former President Donald Trump — an estimated $2 billion total.
Ducey said that the Biden administration’s lack of urgency to address the border crisis signaled a “dereliction of duty.”
On Tuesday, Ducey spokesman C.J. Karamargin told The Washington Examiner that Ducey would consider its response to the USBR letter. Karamargin said that they had doubts about the authenticity of the Biden administration’s concern for the shipping containers since it took over two months for them to issue a response.
“We question their legal analysis and we are looking at our options,” stated Karamargin. “It took the feds since August to write a letter? If this is any indication of their sense of urgency, then perhaps that explains the problem we’re having.”
Last month, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre issued a number of false claims concerning the border, including her insistence that illegal immigrants weren’t simply walking across the border. Jean-Pierre insisted that the Biden administration could do more to secure the border if Republicans “would stop their obstruction.” Democrats control the White House and Congress.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.