A Republican state House member is calling on the U.S. military to increase its fire safety standards for Arizona communities.
Earlier this week, Arizona State Representative David Cook submitted his comments for the U.S. Air Force’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), asking the military branch “to ensure the use of flares is prohibited on days where local, state, and federal agencies have put fire restrictions in place.”
Cook said, “While Arizona is an important state for conducting strategic military training operations, the Air Force needs to take every precaution to protect people and land from preventable disasters, including wildland fires. Releasing flares during times when fire restrictions are in place poses an unnecessary risk to residents. The military must recognize the danger these flares pose to Arizona communities and ensure that no flares are deployed on days when state or local fire restrictions are active.”
In his comments, Cook wrote that, “Although the Draft EIS states that the possibility of wildfires ‘would be remote considering the release altitude under the Proposed Action,’ history has shown that flares have been tied to wildfire occurrences, including the 2021 Telegraph fire, which burned over 180,000 acres and for nearly a month. While ‘the DAF believes it is unlikely that the fire was caused by flares,’ the cause of the Telegraph fire has not been fully resolved, and the Draft EIS does not rule out the possibility that flares were responsible for the fire.”
Cook added, “I believe the best way to reduce the risk of fire caused by flares is to implement a dual approach that includes both minimum altitude restrictions and operational constraints that correlate with local, state, and federal fire restrictions. Accordingly, I respectfully request the DAF update its Final EIS and Proposed Action to prohibit the use of flares on days where local, state, or federal agencies have put fire restrictions in place.”
Members of the public may submit their own comments in support or opposition to the proposal up until October 9.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Another election-related bill was vetoed by Arizona’s Democrat Governor.
On Wednesday, Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed HB 2393, which would have “require[d] political parties that choose to select a nominee for president by a vote that is open to the entire political party membership to provide a method of voting to uniformed services or overseas citizens and persons with disabilities.”
Governor Hobbs Vetoes Legislation Ensuring Voting Rights for Disabled and Overseas Military Members
“Governor Hobbs’ decision to veto this bill is not only irresponsible but also detrimental to the democratic rights of some of our most vulnerable citizens,” said Representative… pic.twitter.com/4OYIfAzP2q
— Arizona House Republicans (@AZHouseGOP) April 11, 2024
In a letter provided to House Speaker Ben Toma, Hobbs explained the reason behind her veto, writing, “If the state were to change the manner in which political parties hold their own elections, it would be important to reflect bipartisan agreement.”
Republican State Representative Alexander Kolodin, the sponsor of the bill, was outraged by the governor’s action. He said, “Governor Hobbs’ decision to veto this bill is not only irresponsible but also detrimental to the democratic rights of some of our most vulnerable citizens. This action leaves a critical aspect of our state law ambiguous, failing to secure the voting rights of individuals with disabilities and our dedicated servicemembers. At a time when ensuring access to the democratic process should be of utmost importance, this veto represents a significant step backward. It’s as if the Governor believes maintaining a murky legal landscape is preferable to granting clear and equitable voting rights to all Arizonans. This isn’t just about policy – it’s about ensuring every voice is heard and valued in our democracy.”
The proposal first passed the Arizona House of Representatives in early February with a 31-24 vote (with two members not voting and three seats vacant). The Arizona Senate then amended the bill and approved that version with a 16-12 vote (with two members not voting) late last month. The House concurred with the Senate’s changes, voting 31-28 (with one member not voting) to transmit the legislation to the Governor’s Office.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The Chinese general Sun Tzu 2,500 years ago wrote, “If you know your enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of 100 battles.”
That’s good advice. Unfortunately, America’s media and military leadership feign ignorance of their current enemies. They never use the words “Muslim” or “Islamist” to identity our foes, terms which actually denote who they are and what inspires them. Instead, they use descriptions like “insurgents,” “militants,” or other euphemisms to avoid hurting the feelings of the enemy.
Hamas, who our leaders would like to believe is their ultimate enemy, is nothing more than the representative-du-jour of a vast network established 1,300 years ago with the never relinquished mission of subjugating the West.
Israel, after decades of repeated atrocities, has no choice but to exterminate Hamas if they ever hope to live in relative security. Even if Hamas is destroyed, there are legions of other terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, a more formidable foe than Hamas, ready and willing to step in and carry on the fight.
For the West, knowing our enemy means recognizing how savage and implacable Islamists are, how outside the mainstream of modern humanity. For many Americans it was shocking to read of terrorists laughing as their October 7 victims were raped, burned, or beheaded, often in front of their families.
Yet the same incomprehensible behavior is common in the hundreds of lightly reported Islamist attacks perpetrated annually worldwide. School children in the madrasas are taught Allah is pleased by fanatical hatred and brutality directed at infidels.
It’s hard for Westerners to comprehend this medieval mindset. Negotiations are fruitless because lying to the enemy is explicitly condoned in traditional Islam. Wars of containment are futile, and appeasement is seen only as weakness. Their ultimate goal is conquest, not peace.
Yet the oblivious Biden administration dodders on as if our relations with the terrorists were governed by the Treaty of Utrecht. Our naïveté was on full display in the recent cease-fire/hostage swap which we foisted upon our Israeli allies.
Mentally sound humans feel deep sympathy for the loved ones of a hostage held by Islamists. Because we value human life more than they do, hostage exchanges are vastly one-sided, typically involving from three up to as many as 1,000 Muslim terrorists exchanged for each civilian.
One of those thousand terrorists recently exchanged for one Israeli is now a Hamas leader who warned that “October 7 was just a rehearsal.” Fifty-five percent of the first 117 terrorists released during the current swaps had been held for murder and other violent crimes, while 21 percent were confirmed jihadists.
The hostages we see are quite visible pictures of utter despair. But for each one we can visualize, there are more at risk of being captured when terrorists realize gains from hostage taking. Each of these potential hostages is also a human being with families and lives of their own. They’re just not visible and don’t know who they are yet.
The hard fact is that when we lavishly reward hostage takers, we are condemning others to the same fate. There is no great solution to the hostage conundrum. It’s worth considering, though, that if we had a policy of not negotiating but instead consistently killing or capturing all hostage takers, the practice would eventually cease.
The Biden administration isn’t into hard choices. Sometimes they even seem confused about which side they are on.
In 2021, for example, the Biden administration restarted funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Hundreds of millions of dollars, which had been frozen by the Trump administration, were distributed to Palestinians in spite of State Department concerns that the funds would almost certainly be used for terrorism.
More broadly, Biden has worked assiduously to appease the Iranian regime and its proxies with billions of dollars. This makes as much sense as slipping money to Nazis during World War II.
The cycle of Islamist violence will never end if we continue to subsidize it and prop it up. Instead of timidity and vacillation toward those who want to kill us, knowing our enemy means understanding that we must focus on destroying and defeating this mortal foe.
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.
The U.S. military is facing a dangerous recruitment crisis. It seems to me, the main contributing factor to this crisis has been the Left’s insistence on infusing politics into our military. Under President Biden’s leadership, the Pentagon has been more interested in fighting the culture war at home than equipping our service men and women in their mission of deterring war and protecting our nation.
Earlier this year, President Biden’s Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin issued a memo to use taxpayer funds for paid time off, lodging, and travel expenses for military service members and their families to receive elective abortions. A clear example of the Left’s push to prioritize a political agenda over longstanding federal policy, this memo was issued without necessary congressional approvals and in spite of the Hyde amendment, a decades-old federal law prohibiting federal funding for abortion that even President Biden himself supported during his tenure in the U.S. Senate. The simple fact is that the Defense Department has no authority to use our taxpayer dollars to facilitate abortion services—in fact, existing federal law makes doing so illegal.
In response, Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama has placed holds on the confirmation of certain military promotions to both demand Secretary Austin rescind the policy and also bring attention to the wider issue of the politicization of our military. Rather than addressing these clear problems and violations of federal law, Arizona’s own Senators have continued to play politics, repeat Democrat talking points, or avoid the issue altogether.
It is the policies of the Biden administration that are the real threat to military readiness and undercutting our national defense capabilities, and that is what Senator Tuberville’s holds are rightly pointing out.
As a former officer in the Army, I can tell you Arizona’s veterans and active-duty service members understand firsthand that politicizing the military is a problem—not a solution. Yet, our U.S. Senators in Arizona have both apparently missed that message.
In July, Senator Mark Kelly claimed blocking of certain military promotions “is doing real damage to our national security right now” and that it will “have cascading effects for years.” But Senator Kelly is fear mongering, plain and simple.
Similarly, Senator Kyrsten Sinema has indicated that she wants to find a “middle ground” between Senator Tuberville and President Biden.
When the military prioritizes social justice instead of operational readiness, uses drag queens as recruiting ambassadors, and spends 6 million man-hours pushing DEI and CRT, it’s no wonder confidence in our military has already dropped by double-digits since Joe Biden took office. Common sense would tell you that is no way to foster recruitment.
We can continue down President Biden’s destructive path of turning our military into a social experiment or we can choose a path that helps our military get back to fulfilling its mission of keeping our country safe.
I stand with Senator Tommy Tuberville.
Curtiss Leroy is a resident of Tucson, AZ, and a Heritage Action Sentinel. He is a former officer in the U.S. Army, serving in Alaska and Vietnam.
A bill that would ban vaccine mandates for government employees died in committee on Monday after a Republican lawmaker voted with Democrats.
State Rep. Matt Gress (R-LD04) said that while he opposed vaccine mandates, he believed that the bill’s language was problematic and “overly broad.” Gress specifically noted his concern that this bill would inhibit the readiness of the armed forces.
“I have deep concerns about our military being ready to address any issues that may arise, including being dispatched to other parts of the world,” said Gress.
Not true. I’ve long been on record on this issue. I do NOT think employers (government or private) should be able to force employees to get the the COVID vaccine. It’s an issue of individual liberty. 1/2 https://t.co/u8MdL8dA3O
The bill, HB2316, would prohibit the government and public accommodations from discriminating against individuals based on their vaccination status, in addition to banning a mandate. These prohibitions wouldn’t apply to health care institutions, schools, and child care facilities. State Rep. Rachel Jones (R-LD17) introduced the bill, along with clean-up language from a strike-everything amendment from State Rep. Barbara Parker (R-LD10).
Several members of the Arizona Freedom Caucus, State Reps. Jacqueline Parker (R-LD15) and Joseph Chaplik (R-LD03), spoke out against Gress’ vote. Parker called Gress’ opposition to the bill “unacceptable,” with Chaplik retweeting her remarks.
Not acceptable. Take notice LD4. 👇 Your reps are NOT representing your interests. https://t.co/HWPKMK598b
During Monday’s committee hearing, Jones said that her husband, a Border Patrol agent, recounted how she was inspired to introduce this legislation because he and others faced the vaccine mandate. Jones said that she and Sen. Justine Wadsack (R-LD17) were inundated with calls from federal employees and contractors worried about the government’s vaccine mandate. Jones testified that they helped over 3,000 individuals retain their jobs.
“I really did make this promise to a lot of the federal employees that I met a year ago that I would come up here and make sure that I would protect them as Arizona citizens from any further overreach from the federal government,” said Jones.
Jones declared that the COVID-19 vaccine should never have been mandated in the first place.
“I think the 10th Amendment gives us the right to protect our citizens if the federal government is potentially overreaching,” said Jones.
Jones also read an anonymous letter from a Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agent denied religious accommodations. The individual had served 17 years in the Air Force: 4 years active duty and 13 years in the reserves.
“’It was unsettling to think that I spent the last 17 years of my life ready to defend the constitutional rights of our citizens and never once did I realize that I somehow gave up my own constitutional rights in the process,’” read Jones. “’Here I am about to lose everything because I want medical freedom and, dare I say it, religious freedom.’”
Parker said that Arizona would be taking back authority from the federal government.
“A ‘yes’ vote means you will never allow a bureaucracy to use pseudoscience to destroy your civil liberties ever again,” said Parker.
Rep. Patricia Contreras (D-LD12) said that the bill was unnecessary, and claimed that the vaccine prevented COVID-19 deaths.
Among those who signaled opposition to the bill were the ACLU, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Public Health Association, American Cancer Society, Coconino County, Arizona Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
