Rand Paul Was Right About Covid

By Jack Hunter

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Few were so hated and so vindicated

Nearly three years ago this month, Anthony Fauci said to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), “Senator Paul, you do not know what you’re talking about.”

Paul had said there was evidence that the National Institute of Health had funded gain-of-function research at a research lab in Wuhan, China.

“I totally resent the lie that you are now propagating, senator,” Fauci would add. “And if anybody’s lying here, senator, it is you.”

It was one of their most fiery exchanges. In the following weeks and months, Paul would not relent.

Fauci accused Paul of just fundraising. CNN’s Brianna Keilar called Paul an “ass.” Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) defended Fauci from Paul’s supposedly mean-spirited questioning, “Thank you for calling out this agenda for what it is: an attempt to score political points, to build a political power base around the denial of science and around personal attacks on you and your family.”

Today, the NIH admits U.S. taxpayers funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan. Even Fauci now admits it’s not a conspiracy theory.

Paul knew this. He wasn’t being crazy or rude. Unlike most, he was studying.

The senator was attacked at the time when he said social distancing didn’t work. In January, Fauci acknowledged that the policy “sort of just appeared” and was not based on any science. Paul was bashed when he said those who had already had Covid had natural immunity and didn’t need vaccinating. Today, the CDC even admits this. Paul was lectured when he said cloth masks were mostly theater and didn’t work as well as N95 masks. The CDC now admits this too. Paul was ridiculed for saying schools should be reopened, kids had the lowest risk, and the lockdowns could do far more damage to children than the virus. By March of this year, even the New York Times could conclude, “Today, there is broad acknowledgment among many public health and education experts that extended school closures did not significantly stop the spread of Covid, while the academic harms for children have been large and long-lasting.”

There are more examples. But these alone are worthy of major discussion.

One many don’t want to have—won’t have.

Throughout the pandemic, legacy media considered it their duty to parrot and protect government policy as unquestionable and infallible. Many politicians did the same. So did entertainment.

The cult of Fauci that arose in that time made him into a devotional prayer candle. The pop star and Disney actress Olivia Rodrigo joined Fauci at a White House press briefing to read his fan mail tweets.

America had split between the good and intelligent people who understood and obeyed “The Science” and the bad half that did not. As an unorthodox libertarian Republican who was the son of Ron Paul and accustomed to kicking up a storm, elites had decided that Rand Paul was the bad half’s leader, assuming his outrageous questioning of Saint Fauci and pandemic pieties were the proof.

They never considered he might be right.

Now that Paul has been shown to be right about so many of his critiques of Covid policy, his critics don’t want to talk about it. They don’t want to say that Anthony Fauci was ever wrong. That any of his or the CDC’s policies were ever wrong. They certainly don’t want to say that they were wrong.

But far more so, they never want to say that Rand Paul was right. Ever. They can’t.

But he was, and while the Covid cultists were too busy circling their wagons each day to defend the tribe of officialdom, impervious to challenge or reason—what they accuse MAGA of—they inoculated themselves from some of the most basic common sense policy considerations.

After all, President Barack Obama once froze the funding of gain-of-function research for reasons not unlike Rand Paul’s questioning of it. (Just ask The Science.)

How much of the Covid-19 pandemic debate was out of genuine concern for public health and safety? How much of it was just more of the crude mindless tribalism that preceded the pandemic and came out arguably stronger on the other end?

You can ask all of the same experts and leaders who got it so wrong, who will perpetually have an audience of fellow travelers who also got it wrong, the whole lot of them still trying to rationalize the madness they imposed on their country.

Or you could just ask the guy who knew exactly what he was talking about the whole time.

*****

This article was published by The American Conservative and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

A Roadmap—If We Want It

By Charles C.W. Cooke

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

In the course of my work examining the original meaning of the Second Amendment, I have often had cause to sift through some of the great legal textbooks of the past. Among these, I count such efforts as A View of the Constitution of the United States of America by William Rawle, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States by Joseph Story, and General Principles of Constitutional Law by Thomas Cooley. I have always enjoyed perusing these works, not only for their considerable explanatory value, but because, while reading them, I have gotten the unmistakable sense that their authors liked and revered their subject of choice. In our age, detailed descriptions of the Constitution are more often penned by its most aggressive critics. “Here is the system,” they say; “and here is why it shouldn’t be.” Or, even, worse: “Here is the law, and here is how my friends and I think it can be cleverly undermined.” I am happy to report that, at long last, we have an entry into the canon that fits the older, more celebratory model. That book is Yuval Levin’s American Covenant.

That Levin likes the Constitution—indeed, that he considers it to be a work of great and timeless genius—is not merely incidental to the argument he proffers. It is central to it. And yet this is no saccharine love letter. Levin believes that James Madison hit upon an extraordinarily appropriate and prescient set of rules—rules that, unlike those that would replace them, accurately account for the nature of the United States and the permanence of human nature—but he at no point allows this judgment to push him toward sentiment, boosterism, or myopia. On the contrary: Levin is worried about America, and about its Constitution. In his telling, we are unduly angry with one another, and, in almost every area of public life, we have forgotten how to use the system we were bequeathed. As a result, we are filling the presidency with men who lack the characteristics that make that office work, we are filling Congress with lawmakers who do not wish to make law, and we are fetishizing the finality of the judiciary at the expense of more democratic forms of debate. Or, to put it another way: We are not being failed by the Constitution; we are failing the Constitution.

Both practically and intellectually, this is a fraught argument to advance. Practically, it is awkward for any democratic society to accept that the people themselves are at fault. Intellectually, the charge that the people are not living up to the Constitution yields the obvious question, “Then shouldn’t we consider that Constitution to be unfit for purpose?” Levin acknowledges these problems, considers their ramifications, and then answers them in depth.

In Levin’s view, our present discontent is the product not of our constitutional order’s being intrinsically broken or hopelessly outdated, but of our having succumbed to a neither-here-nor-there arrangement that is simply incapable of making us virtuous or happy. Specifically, Levin charges that, over time, we have constructed a peculiar hybrid model of government, in which our expectations and the parties that channel them are Wilsonian in nature, but our institutions remain Madisonian. This amalgam, he suggests, does not work—and never will.

Nor, Levin argues persuasively, would giving up on our Constitution completely be likely to improve anything. Why? Well, because politics is division, and because the Madisonian system that he champions incorporates that fact into its design in a way that no other scheme can rival. It is here, in his assessment of human nature, that Levin is at his most conservative. He pushes back hard against the supposition that the political divisions that have animated Americans since the founding of the republic are shallow or fake, and that it is private corruption and architectural inertia, rather than earnest disagreement, that makes our politics fractious. Likewise, he rejects the claim that there is “a preexisting unity” in the country that is “waiting to be represented at last,” rather than “durable differences that need to be negotiated and assuaged” at all times. “An implicit premise of the Constitution,” he writes, is that “the diversity of interests and views in American society is a permanent reality” that cannot be stamped out by force or by expertise. Insofar as the Constitution is used in a manner that acknowledges that, it will work nicely.

The public is routinely presented with a peculiar bastard-child version of the Constitution that leads voters to precisely the opposite set of conclusions than the ones Levin submits.

By “used,” Levin is careful to stress that he does not solely mean by judges. Indeed, he records throughout that, while the Constitution is our highest law—and while it ought to be treated as such—its role in American life goes far beyond litigation. In this sense, Levin’s work represents an extended call for originalism in every area of our civic life. In his chapter on the courts, he acknowledges that originalism has prevailed within the judicial sphere—and that this development is salutary—but he worries that this has given those who affected that change a form of tunnel vision that has led them to focus exclusively on Article III. For the Constitution to be restored in toto, Levin insists, Americans need to understand what it is for in every area to which it applies. Accordingly, in addition to a correct understanding of the courts, they need a correct understanding of federalism, a correct understanding of the role of Congress, a correct understanding of the nature of the presidency, a correct understanding of the role of political parties, and, ultimately, a correct understanding of their rights and responsibilities as citizens. He treads lightly in this area, as is his style, but, clearly, he does not believe that enough citizens currently possess that understanding.

While he considers this regrettable, it does not necessarily surprise him. As a matter of fact, he notes that James Madison himself possessed “a kind of middle of view of the virtues of his fellow citizens,” which led him to conclude that there “was no escape from self-interest and ambition” but that “Americans, nonetheless, did take freedom, equality, and personal honor seriously.” On this, he and I agree. But I suspect that we differ a little in our estimation of how likely to come to fruition the restoration he seeks really is. I agree with basically everything Levin says. I agree with his description of where we are. I agree with the premise of his broader case: That the Constitution is the roadmap to renewal. And I agree with him on most of the particulars. With the exception of his briefly offered view that “Congress alone is empowered to decide” “how much of the federalist compromise of the Constitution should be abandoned”—I see no limiting principle there and would like to learn more about what he means—I am, in almost every way, a Levinite. Were he a sorcerer, able to instill his view of the Constitution into the hearts of the American people, I would happily acquiesce to the endeavor. Ultimately, though, I am not as optimistic as he is.

This is not dispositional. Like Levin, I am a flag-waving immigrant who, on balance, tends toward gratitude and buoyancy. Rather, it is because I seem to worry more than he does about two key drivers of constitutional illiteracy that Levin does not meaningfully address: the media, and the schools. Levin begins his book with the observation that people shape constitutions, and, in turn, constitutions return the favor and shape the people. This is correct, and there is no doubt in my mind that this process has kept America freer and better governed than any other democracy over the last 250 years. Nevertheless, that shaping process is only as good as the people doing the shaping, and it seems clear to me that the vast majority of our mediating institutions have decided in recent decades to promulgate a version of the US Constitution that simply does not exist. Were Levin’s vision to be the norm in our newspapers and universities, I’d expect to see a revival in two decades flat. Instead, the public is routinely presented with a peculiar bastard-child version of the document that leads voters to precisely the opposite set of conclusions than the ones Levin submits. That ersatz Constitution has Wilsonian assumptions about the role of each branch—but only when a Democrat is in charge; it is almost entirely driven by outcomes, rather than processes; and it allows no room for the sort of informed nuance that serves as a prerequisite to the proper understanding of our system. That being so, I would add a step to Levin’s plan. First, we must transform our elite culture; then, once the people have been given a fair chance to learn about the structure under which they live, we must prevail upon them to live up to their patrimony.

But that, ultimately, is a nitpick. Levin is an intellectual, not a sorcerer or a politician, and it is his job to describe the world as he sees it, irrespective of the political niceties. At this, he excels, and in a style that is unusual for our cynical, partisan age. Back in the 1780s and 1790s, during the debates over the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, James Madison liked to write letters to figures whom he believed had characterized his handiwork particularly well. One such missive, written to Tench Coxe in 1789, thanked him for his “explanatory strictures” on the first ten amendments, and suggested that the prospects for ratification were “indebted to the co-operation of your pen.” That I can imagine Madison sending an updated version of these words to Yuval Levin speaks volumes about the scale of his achievement.

We have a roadmap—if we want it.

*****

This article was published by Law & Liberty and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Retribution

By Neland Nobel

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Regrettable But Necessary

Retribution is a subject being discussed among Conservatives right now.  There is a feeling, perhaps premature, that Donald Trump will likely win in the coming election and that Republicans will generally control at least one house of Congress.  There is also a growing consensus that a strong counterattack to Democrat lawfare is the only way to get them to stop.

We say it is premature because, well, it is.  Much can happen between now and election day.  However, Republicans don’t want to be caught flat-footed as in Trump’s first term.  They were unprepared to govern, did not have good candidates to fill the Federal bureaucracy, were not prepared for the “resistance”, did not understand democracy killing “lawfare”, the change in election laws, and did not fully appreciate the rise of the Deep State.

Today, however, these new factors are better understood.

So, while we do not wish to diminish election efforts to win, we should have plans in place should we win.  That is reasonable.

What is somewhat amusing is that those who dished it out are now growing frightened that Trump might win as well. Let’s call it PTVA.  That stands for Premature Trump Victory Anxiety.

What is meant by retribution in this context?  Retribution is punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for wrong or criminal acts. Note the definition says criminal acts, not political views.

In Progressive circles, the word retribution is also circulating, and some have visions ranging from concentration camps to having their TV shows canceled.

Some Republicans feel the blowback coming and are just trying to distance themselves from the concept because it is believed distasteful.

Remember, retribution means punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for wrongful or criminal acts. 

Thus, if restricted to lawbreakers, it would leave Left-wing TV shows alone.  However, market forces and boycotts can be applied.  Turnaround is fair play. Those who pushed the “cancel culture” on Conservatives might be more understanding when they get a taste of their own medicine.

Concerning lawfare, Conservatives need to recognize the danger of tit-for-tat retaliation.  We certainly don’t want to cement these bad practices by accepting the bad precedent Progressives have set.

However, there is nothing wrong with going after those who committed “wrongful or criminal acts”, using the standard procedures of the law as they existed before the recent age of lawfare. 

That is not called vengeance, it is called justice.

Not only is the pursuit of justice praiseworthy, but it may also be necessary today as a deterrent.

If Conservatives don’t respond, then the Progressive Left will just keep using lawsuits and prosecutions as a substitute for the ballot box.  And if they are allowed to keep this up, they will ruin the country and achieve one-party rule.

It must be appreciated that the Democrat Party of John Kennedy, Scoop Jackson, and Sam Nunn, died about 20 years ago and has been supplanted by Obama and Bernie Sanders radicals. This is now a radical, revolutionary party that wants to upend political institutions, the economy, and the family, and “transform America.”

So, the only way to stop them from doing this is to hit back legally, preferably without adopting their methods.

Now admittedly, some conservatives think we should use their methods, and that is the only way to stop the radicals from using them again.  They reason that if Conservatives counterattack using the same methods, like mutually assured destruction among nuclear powers, both sides will learn the hard way not to use the legal system for political ends.

However, there is a danger in doing this.  As stated earlier, it now sets a precedent that is bad for the law and our politics. Moreover, the abuse of power is not limited to radicals from the Left.  The potential for the abuse of power resides in all men, not just people from the Left side of the political spectrum.  The great wisdom of the Founders was to assume power corrupts all men of all political hues.  We should make the same assumption.

However, the excesses of the Democrats have been so flagrant and so extreme, that standard legal procedures existent before the age of lawfare, should be sufficient to hold them accountable and obtain justice.  We don’t need to copy their dastardly innovations to strike back.

This means rigorously holding accountable those who broke the law and who are not being prosecuted by the current DOJ and Administration.  True, some alteration of the statute of limitations might be necessary because the DOJ has deliberately run out the clock on selective cases. It means being relentless in exposing, prosecuting, and firing those who have abused their office or failed under their watch to enforce the law as written.

As one of our recent contributors put it, we have a road map back to sanity and it is called the Constitution. Strict adherence to the original meaning of the Constitution will do much to shore up institutions of government and ensure the proper functioning of Federalism.

Cutting off the money is another perfectly legal but non-judicial methodology.  For example, those universities that receive money in any form from the Federal Government will have their funding off if they practice racial discrimination against white people, Asians, males, or any other citizens based on race or sex.

This should also be true of any primary and secondary school system that received Federal money.

Ideally, eliminating the Department of Education should be the goal, but in the interim, the structure can be used to stop DEI and CRT in the schools.

Congressional investigations, hearings, Presidential Commissions, and tribunals may also be valid non-judicial ways of exposing and punishing those who have abused their power.

However, the days when a Senator can be shamed on the floor of the Senate with “Sir, do you have no sense of decency” are long gone.  The irony is, despite the condemnation of his fellow Senators, McCarthy was largely correct even if his methods were not always kosher.

That said, we do live in a different era today.  The sort of rhetorical condemnation suggested above was once sufficient but today would hardly dissuade them from continuing lawfare. Our political opponents are radicals and revolutionaries, and we cannot just stand by and be abused without striking back.

They will try to paint it as vengeance and maybe there will be some truth in that.  However, strong counterpunching within the law should be a successful deterrent.  Vengeance might be a worthwhile side effect of pursuing justice but justice should be the main goal. 

We wish it could be done outside of the courts, but given thin majorities, and a “free press” which largely supports the radicals and legal abusers, and has failed its task of informing the public; justice will likely only be served in court and Congressional hearings.

We can expect the corporate media, corporate board rooms, universities, book publishers, and Hollywood to run cover for the Left.  That may change over time, but we cannot realistically think they will turn against the Left anytime soon.  The Left still thoroughly dominates the communication hubs within the culture.

A Republican victory is a growing possibility. If so, Conservatives need to examine retribution, its problems, and its consequences. And, we need to start making plans and picking out targets.  It is a target-rich environment out there!

We must also guard against those who think these legal abuses should go unanswered because it offends their sensibilities.

How offended were they when these legal atrocities like the use of fabricated foreign intelligence were used to impeach a President twice?  Intelligence that was paid for by leading Democrats and pushed by the FBI and the CIA?  Did they oppose the abuse of the legal system when five Democrat jurisdictions started prosecuting an ex-president on bogus charges? Did they complain when states attempted to keep him off the ballot? Did they condemn all the lies we were told about Covid and did they apologize for the abuse of our civil liberties and the great inflation they have inflicted upon us? Did they complain when district attorneys fail to prosecute because they believe criminals are just victims of an unjust society and care nothing of the real victims? Did they complain about the one-sided manner the January 6th Committee conducted itself and hid information from the public?  Did they complain loudly about the bankrupting of America or did they partake in the boondoggle? Were they offended when the law is used to pursue every attorney who has the temerity to represent a Republican in court or give legal advice?

Those who did not complain loudly and forcibly, have no credibility in talking about the evils of retribution. Their failure to speak out and fight back is what now makes retribution necessary.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Legal Retribution: The Plan to Address Progressive Overreach

By Neland Nobel

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Regrettable But Necessary

Retribution is a subject being discussed among Conservatives right now.  There is a feeling, perhaps premature, that Donald Trump will likely win in the coming election and that Republicans will generally control at least one house of Congress.  There is also a growing consensus that a strong counterattack to Democrat lawfare is the only way to get them to stop.

We say it is premature because, well, it is.  Much can happen between now and election day.  However, Republicans don’t want to be caught flat-footed as in Trump’s first term.  They were unprepared to govern, did not have good candidates to fill the Federal bureaucracy, were not prepared for the “resistance”, did not understand democracy killing “lawfare”, the change in election laws, and did not fully appreciate the rise of the Deep State.

Today, however, these new factors are better understood.

So, while we do not wish to diminish election efforts to win, we should have plans in place should we win.  That is reasonable.

What is somewhat amusing is that those who dished it out are now growing frightened that Trump might win as well. Let’s call it PTVA.  That stands for Premature Trump Victory Anxiety.

What is meant by retribution in this context?  Retribution is punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for wrong or criminal acts. Note the definition says criminal acts, not political views.

In Progressive circles, the word retribution is also circulating, and some have visions ranging from concentration camps to having their TV shows canceled.

Some Republicans feel the blowback coming and are just trying to distance themselves from the concept because it is believed distasteful.

Remember, retribution means punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for wrongful or criminal acts. 

Thus, if restricted to lawbreakers, it would leave Left-wing TV shows alone.  However, market forces and boycotts can be applied.  Turnaround is fair play. Those who pushed the “cancel culture” on Conservatives might be more understanding when they get a taste of their own medicine.

Concerning lawfare, Conservatives need to recognize the danger of tit-for-tat retaliation.  We certainly don’t want to cement these bad practices by accepting the bad precedent Progressives have set.

However, there is nothing wrong with going after those who committed “wrongful or criminal acts”, using the standard procedures of the law as they existed before the recent age of lawfare. 

That is not called vengeance, it is called justice.

Not only is the pursuit of justice praiseworthy, but it may also be necessary today as a deterrent.

If Conservatives don’t respond, then the Progressive Left will just keep using lawsuits and prosecutions as a substitute for the ballot box.  And if they are allowed to keep this up, they will ruin the country and achieve one-party rule.

It must be appreciated that the Democrat Party of John Kennedy, Scoop Jackson, and Sam Nunn, died about 20 years ago and has been supplanted by Obama and Bernie Sanders radicals. This is now a radical, revolutionary party that wants to upend political institutions, the economy, and the family, and “transform America.”

So, the only way to stop them from doing this is to hit back legally, preferably without adopting their methods.

Now admittedly, some conservatives think we should use their methods, and that is the only way to stop the radicals from using them again.  They reason that if Conservatives counterattack using the same methods, like mutually assured destruction among nuclear powers, both sides will learn the hard way not to use the legal system for political ends.

However, there is a danger in doing this.  As stated earlier, it now sets a precedent that is bad for the law and our politics. Moreover, the abuse of power is not limited to radicals from the Left.  The potential for the abuse of power resides in all men, not just people from the Left side of the political spectrum.  The great wisdom of the Founders was to assume power corrupts all men of all political hues.  We should make the same assumption.

However, the excesses of the Democrats have been so flagrant and so extreme, that standard legal procedures existent before the age of lawfare, should be sufficient to hold them accountable and obtain justice.  We don’t need to copy their dastardly innovations to strike back.

This means rigorously holding accountable those who broke the law and who are not being prosecuted by the current DOJ and Administration.  True, some alteration of the statute of limitations might be necessary because the DOJ has deliberately run out the clock on selective cases. It means being relentless in exposing, prosecuting, and firing those who have abused their office or failed under their watch to enforce the law as written.

As one of our recent contributors put it, we have a road map back to sanity and it is called the Constitution. Strict adherence to the original meaning of the Constitution will do much to shore up institutions of government and ensure the proper functioning of Federalism.

Cutting off the money is another perfectly legal but non-judicial methodology.  For example, those universities that receive money in any form from the Federal Government will have their funding off if they practice racial discrimination against white people, Asians, males, or any other citizens based on race or sex.

This should also be true of any primary and secondary school system that received Federal money.

Ideally, eliminating the Department of Education should be the goal, but in the interim, the structure can be used to stop DEI and CRT in the schools.

Congressional investigations, hearings, Presidential Commissions, and tribunals may also be valid non-judicial ways of exposing and punishing those who have abused their power.

However, the days when a Senator can be shamed on the floor of the Senate with “Sir, do you have no sense of decency” are long gone.  The irony is, despite the condemnation of his fellow Senators, McCarthy was largely correct even if his methods were not always kosher.

That said, we do live in a different era today.  The sort of rhetorical condemnation suggested above was once sufficient but today would hardly dissuade them from continuing lawfare. Our political opponents are radicals and revolutionaries, and we cannot just stand by and be abused without striking back.

They will try to paint it as vengeance and maybe there will be some truth in that.  However, strong counterpunching within the law should be a successful deterrent.  Vengeance might be a worthwhile side effect of pursuing justice but justice should be the main goal. 

We wish it could be done outside of the courts, but given thin majorities, and a “free press” which largely supports the radicals and legal abusers, and has failed its task of informing the public; justice will likely only be served in court and Congressional hearings.

We can expect the corporate media, corporate board rooms, universities, book publishers, and Hollywood to run cover for the Left.  That may change over time, but we cannot realistically think they will turn against the Left anytime soon.  The Left still thoroughly dominates the communication hubs within the culture.

A Republican victory is a growing possibility. If so, Conservatives need to examine retribution, its problems, and its consequences. And, we need to start making plans and picking out targets.  It is a target-rich environment out there!

We must also guard against those who think these legal abuses should go unanswered because it offends their sensibilities.

How offended were they when these legal atrocities like the use of fabricated foreign intelligence were used to impeach a President twice?  Intelligence that was paid for by leading Democrats and pushed by the FBI and the CIA?  Did they oppose the abuse of the legal system when five Democrat jurisdictions started prosecuting an ex-president on bogus charges? Did they complain when states attempted to keep him off the ballot? Did they condemn all the lies we were told about Covid and did they apologize for the abuse of our civil liberties and the great inflation they have inflicted upon us? Did they complain when district attorneys fail to prosecute because they believe criminals are just victims of an unjust society and care nothing of the real victims? Did they complain about the one-sided manner the January 6th Committee conducted itself and hid information from the public?  Did they complain loudly about the bankrupting of America or did they partake in the boondoggle? Were they offended when the law is used to pursue every attorney who has the temerity to represent a Republican in court or give legal advice?

Those who did not complain loudly and forcibly, have no credibility in talking about the evils of retribution. Their failure to speak out and fight back is what now makes retribution necessary.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

The Long and Winding Road to Socialism

By Gabriel Gasave

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” Friedrich August von Hayek

First released in 1944, Friedrich August von Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom serves as a powerful cautionary tale against totalitarianism while also presenting a robust advocacy for individual freedom and market economics. Beyond being merely a political thesis, the book meticulously examines the practical ramifications a socialist economy would encounter in addressing economic and social obstacles.

It’s crucial to recognize that during that period, Hayek was formulating his intellectual ideas amidst the backdrop of two devastating World Wars, a rising enthusiasm for socialism within academic circles, and continual predictions proclaiming the imminent collapse of capitalism.

Like the saying “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” attributed to the French saint Bernard of Clairvaux, the book begins by analyzing how ideas that promote collectivism, while they may be laced with the noble intentions of creating a more just and equitable society, inevitably end up leading to tyranny and oppression by concentrating both economic and political power.

This is why Hayek emphasizes the indivisibility of freedom and the close relationship between economic freedom and political freedom, pointing out that any attempt to restrict the former eventually leads to the suppression of the latter.

Hayek imparts a crucial lesson on how centralized planning inevitably results in the inefficient allocation of scarce resources, leading to widespread hardship and a diminished standard of living. He warns that no one can possess omniscient awareness of all societal needs and preferences. With millions of individuals each holding only fragmented knowledge, Hayek underscores that a society built on principles of individual freedom, private property, and market economics—guided by the information conveyed through relative prices—is the true safeguard of prosperity and progress.

In his own words:

The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess. The economic problem of society is thus not merely a problem of how to allocate “given” resources—if “given” is taken to mean given to a single mind which deliberately solves the problem set by these ‘data.’ It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know. Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality.

He continues that individuals respond to these price signals by making decisions in a dispersed manner. Thus, Hayek contrasts centralized planning with the concept of spontaneous order. Only, he tells us, free markets generate more efficient and adaptive outcomes than any well-intentioned decision by a mastermind.

In a 1977 interview with Thomas W. Hazlett for Reason Magazine, Hayek expands on this point 33 years later:

I’ve always doubted that the socialists had a leg to stand on intellectually. They have improved their argument somehow, but once you begin to understand that prices are an instrument of communication and guidance which embody more information than we directly have, the whole idea that you can bring about the same order based on the division of labor by simple direction falls to the ground.

As for competition, Hayek sees it as an efficient mechanism for allocating resources and stimulating innovation while understanding that state intervention in the economy distorts this process and generates inefficiencies. Hayek also analyzes the role of government and the purpose of laws in society, advocating the establishment of a limited government whose main function is to protect individual rights and enforce public order, that is, to impart justice, as opposed to one that seeks to direct the economic and social life of citizens in an authoritarian manner and opposed to a genuine rule of law.

In the interview where reference is made to his book, which Hayek genially dedicated “To Socialists of All Parties,” and his interlocutor questions him about whether Britain at that time was inevitably on the road to serfdom, Hayek responded, “No, not irrevocably. That’s one of the misunderstandings. The Road to Serfdom was meant to be a warning: ‘Unless you mend your ways, you’ll go to the devil.’ And you can always mend your ways.”

Eighty years later, The Road to Serfdom remains as relevant as ever. Its warnings about the dangers of centralized planning, the vital significance of individual freedom, and the advantages of the free market still resonate in discussions about the role of the state and the economy. Let us remember the cautionary message Hayek imparted and persist in our efforts to ensure that all paths lead to one destination: freedom.

*****

This article was published by The Beacon, a publication of the Independent Institute, and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Evidence Is Mounting That Biden’s Executive Order Isn’t Stopping Illegal Immigrants From Flooding Over Border

By Jason Hopkins

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

President Joe Biden’s executive order to control the southern border does not appear to have affected the flow of illegal immigration into the country so far, according to sector reports, internal data and local officials.

Biden’s executive order on the U.S.-Mexico border, which officially went into effect last Wednesday, pauses new asylum requests once the number of average border encounters exceeds 2,500 a day over a week-long time period, resuming when the seven-day daily average drops to 1,500. However, there are no signs so far that the order is stemming the tide of foreign nationals crossing the border between ports of entry.

There were nearly 4,000 migrants apprehended on Wednesday, the first full day of Biden’s order went into effect, according to data obtained by NewsNation. Similar numbers were reported for the following days that week with encounters spiking to 10,000 on Saturday, NewsNation reported, further indicating that Biden’s order has done little to decrease the number of migrants from crossing illegally through the U.S.-Mexico border.

John Modlin, the chief patrol agent of Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector, reported 7,500 total apprehensions in his sector for the first week of June. This number is virtually unchanged from the 7,800 apprehensions that took place in the last week of May, and higher than the three other weeks that month.

“Biden’s executive order is a facade, offering the illusion of security while doing nothing to address the real issues at our borders,” Jim Desmond, a San Diego county supervisor, said on Monday. “This past weekend alone, thousands of individuals entered San Diego County, exacerbating the alarming number of over 151,000 street releases this fiscal year.”

There were around 5,600 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encounters on Wednesday, including the 4,000 illegal crossings and CBP One App releases at ports of entry, according to sources that spoke with Fox News. There were roughly 10,000 foreign nationals in Border Patrol custody on Thursday, a number four times the limit set by Biden’s order, according to data leaked to the New York Post.

“None whatsoever,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said Sunday when asked by Fox News Host Maria Bartiromo if there was any discernible change at the border since the White House issued its executive order. “Listen, people need to understand that what Biden has done, he’s not doing anything to actually secure the border.”

“In fact, it’s the opposite because he’s actually authorizing more people to cross the border illegally. And think about this: when you get to that 2,500 number of people crossing the border a day that he says he will allow, but only then stop the asylum process, when he stops the asylum process, there’s nothing that Biden is doing that actually is preventing anybody else from crossing the border,” Abbott continued.

In an interview with ABC on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was questioned on whether he expected numbers to drop below a 1,500 daily average of migrant encounters in the coming months. Mayorkas said the Biden administration was “driving” toward that goal.

Neither Customs and Border Protections nor the White House immediately responded to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

*****

This article was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Interactive Calculator Shows How Cutting Carbon Emissions Would Barely Budge Temperatures thumbnail

Interactive Calculator Shows How Cutting Carbon Emissions Would Barely Budge Temperatures

By Kevin Dayaratna

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Editors’ Note: We don’t think the connection between CO2 and “global warming” has been established. However, even if you assume the theory, and use their own models, the destruction of our standard of living by environmental zealots does not substantially change future temperatures. Then why the continued force-feeding of their agenda? Because it gives the government and the elites control over every aspect of our lives and forces us to act on a lie. This is essential to establish the totalitarian state that deep environmentalists yearn for.

Ever since the start of Joe Biden’s presidency, curbing climate change has been a fundamental component of his energy policy agenda.

During the spring, for example, the Biden administration issued a power plant rule­­, imposing strict emissions reductions regarding the use of fossil-fuel power plants. There have been many other rules proposed as well, including regulating cars, stoves, dishwashers, water heaters, and even microwaves.

All of these rules are predicated on concerns about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on global temperatures and climate change. If greenhouse gas emissions drive climate change, then curbing the use of sources of energy that emit them (such as coal, oil, and natural gas) should in theory curb these increases in global temperature.

However, lawmakers often present policies aimed at curbing climate change only in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions reductions. For example, the recent rule the Biden administration issued on electric vehicles claims it will reduce greenhouse gases by 7.2 billion tons through 2055.

This figure sounds large, but it’s surprisingly deceptive: A key unanswered question is the actual temperature impact of these and other related policies.

The predicted temperature impact of these and other policies hinges on a number of assumptions that affect our ever-changing climate. 

That’s why we have created The Heritage Foundation Climate Calculator, an online tool that enables the public to change some of the assumptions to simulate the climate effects of these policies to reduce carbon emissions. (The libertarian Cato Institute had a similar tool in the 2010s.)

The calculator is based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Model for Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change.   

As the documentation illustrates, there are myriad assumptions regarding climate in this model. Our calculator focuses on allowing the user to play with two key assumptions:

  1. Climate sensitivity
  2. Level of emissions reduction

Scientists generally agree that the earth warms as carbon dioxide emissions increase. The real question, then, is to what degree (no pun intended).

Climate sensitivity measures how much the earth’s temperature will warm as a result of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Climate scientists’ estimates of climate sensitivity vary greatly, partly because the physical interactions between carbon dioxide and temperatures are not fully understood.

The level of emissions reductions is the percentage of CO2 emissions that lawmakers would seek to reduce with respect to current emissions. The methodology explained below contains full details.

The simulations presented in this calculator allow user-selected climate sensitivities between 2 and 5 degrees, stated as the “very likely” range of climate sensitivity, according the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Reportencompassing the “likely” range of 2.5 to 4 degrees.

Although empirical evidence comparing observations to predictions suggests that sensitivities toward the lower end of these ranges may indeed be more plausible, The Heritage Foundation Climate Calculator allows users to decide which climate sensitivity they would like to assume and how steep the reductions in fossil fuel use they’d like to see.

For example, what if lawmakers wanted to reduce carbon emissions by 40% starting this year? Assuming a 3-degree sensitivity (the middle of the IPCC’s range of sensitivities), there would be about a 0.036 degree Celsius reduction by 2050 and 0.070 degree Celsius decline by 2100.

What about the European Union, again assuming 3.5 degree Celsius sensitivity and 40% reductions? It’s even more trifling—less than 0.019 degree Celsius temperature reduction by 2050 and 0.037 degree Celsius temperature decline in 2100.

Even assuming the most aggressive policy imaginable (100% reductions) and the IPCC’s worst-case scenario regarding climate sensitivity (5 degrees sensitivity), The Heritage Foundation Climate Calculator shows that if the U.S. were to completely eliminate use of fossil fuels, there would be less than 0.23 degree Celsius global temperature reduction by 2100.

If the EU were to do so, the impact would be even more trifling—less than 0.13 degree Celsius global temperature reduction.

These are just a few of the scenarios that one can simulate using The Heritage Foundation Climate Calculator.

We encourage you to play with the calculator and tweak assumptions yourself. The results will speak for themselves: Regardless of the assumptions made using this government model, the climate effects of carbon reduction policies are slim to none.

Don’t be deceived: Emissions reductions that lawmakers claim to be large in quantity will fail to produce meaningful temperature reductions and strengthen China, while Beijing continues to pump out greenhouse gases in much larger quantities than the rest of the world.

*****

This article was published by the Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Communists, Antisemites Lose Big in European Parliamentary Elections

By Itxu Díaz

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Editors’ Note: Here is a twist on the recent European elections we have not seen elsewhere. Besides the revolt against elites, there was a general turn away from the “International Left” and its active antisemitism. In addition, the positioning of political parties in Europe demonstrates how Jew hatred is now a phenomenon almost exclusively of the Left, both in the US and Europe. We hope recognition of this fact will sway some of our Jewish friends to reconsider their slavish allegiance to the Democrat Party and have them re-think their long historical infatuation with socialism. The latent threat some Jews have felt that Christians might convert their children has to be weighed against the real likelihood of having your children converted in college to secular leftism. Some of these Jewish kids are now out demonstrating on behalf of Hamas. The political shift in Europe is a welcome development in an otherwise grim outlook for both Jews and Israel.

On the other side of the aisle, Israel’s supporters make gains

Three of the most antisemitic parties in Europe, according to a ranking prepared last year by the European Coalition for Israel, are, much to my regret, Spanish: Sumar, Izquierda Unida, and Podemos. All three are extreme leftists, more specifically, communists. Since 2018, all three have had cabinet ministers in the government of socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez. And all three were dealt a strong blow at the polls in the European Parliament elections that took place on June 9. I will shed no tears for them. I have seen them call for pro-Palestinian and antisemitic demonstrations in Spain three or four days after the Oct. 7 attack, indifferent to the terrible images of the atrocities, the rapes, and the kidnappings.

The three parties had dedicated a good part of their European election campaign to showing support for Hamas and attacking Israel, even though neither issue topped the agenda of the debate on the future of the EU. In fact, with the exception of the nationalist Vox party, whose leader, Santiago Abascal, met with Benjamin Netanyahu at the end of May to express his explicit support, none of the main Spanish parties made Israel a feature of their electoral campaigns.

So severe was the blow to the leftist parties, that the leader of Sumar and second deputy prime minister, Yolanda Díaz, stepped down from her position as general coordinator of her party, though not from her government post. (It’s probably no coincidence that she quit only the unpaid position.)

But the poor results of the Spanish communists are not an exception in Europe. Almost all of the most antisemitic parties in the EU, who dwell at the bottom of the European Coalition for Israel’s rankings, have received a slap in the face at the polls.

Let’s take a look: The Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) and Bloco de Esquerda (Left Bloc) have lost half of their representatives in the European Parliament. The day after the Oct. 7 attacks, the PCP published a scandalous communiqué: “The events that are unfolding in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are the result of decades of occupation and systematic disregard by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to a sovereign and independent state, of permanent violation of all UN resolutions and international agreements on the Palestinian issue.” For its part, Bloco de Esquerda maintained during its electoral campaign that Israel was committing “genocide” in Gaza.

Other losers include Slovenia’s Europeo Socialni demokrati (Social Democrats), whose leader pushed for recognition of the Palestinian state by the Slovenian government; Belgium’s Ecolo, which claimed Israel’s response to the attack was “disproportionate”; and Open VLD, the party of Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, who became embroiled in several anti-Israel controversies after saying that Israel “must prove it is not using famine as a weapon of war.” De Croo finally resigned on June 10 following his party’s poor results in the European elections.

In France, Europe Écologie (the Greens), which accused Israel of “flagrantly violating international law and human rights,” became irrelevant, losing five MEPs out of the 10 it had. In Spain, the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE), the party of Prime Minister Sanchez, which has approved the recognition of the Palestinian state (against the majority opinion of Spaniards) and which includes in its government several ministers defending Hamas, has lost seats as have all its communist partners.

In Croatia, Vihreä Iiitto (Green League), which accused Israel of exercising “collective revenge against an entire civilian population,” has also lost votes and seats, as have Bulgaria’s Bulgarian Socialist Party, the progressive Piráti in the Czech Republic, the green party (Grüne) in Austria, and the Labour Party (Partit Laburista) in Malta, among others.

It is worth noting that some of the parties that are ranked as antisemitic, such as the German Die Linke, and traditionally opposed to Israel, have shifted their position away from the Palestinian cause following the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks.

On the other the side of the aisle, among Israel’s major supporters, Viktor Orban’s party Fidesz won the European elections in Hungary, and Spain’s Vox doubled its presence in parliament with six seats, Sweden’s right-wing Sweden Democrats kept their three seats in the European Parliament, and the Netherlands’ conservative Reformed Political Party (SGP) held on to its seat as well.

*****

Continue reading this article at Tablet.

Image Credit: Shutterstock

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Their Strategy in the War on Food

By Tracy Thurman

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

In my previous two articles, we covered the global war on farmers and the culprits behind this agenda. Today, we will dive into the tactics these organizations use to foist their dystopian vision on the rest of us.

Perhaps you remember Event 201, the pandemic simulation run in late 2019 that served as a dress rehearsal for the 2020 Covid response. Such simulations have been used in the War on Food as well. Take, for example, the Food Chain Reaction Game, a 2015 wargame that simulated the time period from 2020 to 2030. Cargill and the other participants have removed the Food Chain Reaction Game data from their websites, but Cargill’s version was archived by independent researchers, so you can still see it here.

In the simulation, the decade brought “two major food crises, with prices approaching 400 percent of the long term average; a raft of climate-related extreme weather events; governments toppling in Pakistan and Ukraine; and famine and refugee crises in Bangladesh, Myanmar, Chad and Sudan.” When the game ended, its organizers had imposed meat taxes in Europe, capped CO2 emissions, and instituted a global carbon tax. The time period of the Food Chain Reaction Game handily coincides with the 2020 Covid crisis and ends with the culmination of Agenda 2030. If you don’t think those dates are significant, you aren’t paying attention.

The parties behind this simulation include the World Wildlife Fund, the Center for American Progress, the Center for Naval Analyses, and Cargill. Note the participation of US military and intelligence-linked organizations in this simulation, much as they appeared throughout the Covid power grab. Cargill, as I mentioned before, is one of the most powerful members of the global Big Ag cartel and have excelled in crushing independent farmers globally to establish total control of the food supply. The Center For American Progress is a Soros and Podesta-affiliated think tank.

The World Wildlife Fund has a shady Malthusian history dating to its eugenicist founders like Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, co-founder of the Bilderberg Group; transhumanist Julian Huxley (brother of Brave New World author Aldous Huxley); and Britain’s Prince Philip, who said he wanted to be reincarnated “as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.” 

Note that the measures these conspirators concocted – meat taxes and a global carbon tax – have nothing to do with increasing the food supply to end famine – much as Event 201’s participants obsessed about vaccines and controlling misinformation rather than providing effective early treatment for disease. To state the obvious, neither simulation is really about solving hunger or viral contagion. They are designed to game out how to ram an agenda down the throats of an unwilling populace.

Both exercises are classic examples of Hegelian Dialectic, the problem-reaction-solution strategy whereby a problem is created or used to stimulate public demand for a solution. The solution always involves pre-planned actions or legislation that never would have passed public approval before the problem was created. To quote Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. By that I mean, it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

The goal of the Food Chain Reaction Game simulation and the global elites who share this vision is simple but devastating: the controlled demolition of the current food supply and supply chain network – not to end factory farming and replace it with regenerative, earth healing agriculture – but to replace it with a global, centralized, fully surveilled, and tightly controlled food system based on lab-created and industrially processed so-called foods, with little dietary choice and abysmal health outcomes for all but the elites, using climate change as the excuse for it all.

As Bertrand Russell predicted, diet will not be left to individuals, but will be such as the best biochemists recommend.

If you’re new to this topic, you may feel that statement is hyperbolic. It is hard to grasp that there are people planning something this far-reaching and diabolical – it’s as far-fetched as a network of global elites using a lab-escaped virus as an excuse to destroy the economies of the world and forcibly inject billions with experimental poisons. But it is reality, and as the quotes from Bertrand Russell and Monsanto’s CEO hint, this agenda has been in the works for decades. 

In my next article, we will look at some of the publicly acknowledged projects that are in the pipeline for achieving this goal.

*****

This article was published by The Brownstone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

The Problem with Juneteenth

By Connor O’Keeffe

One hundred fifty-nine years ago, on June 19, 1865, Major General Gordon Granger arrived in Texas and declared that all slaves in the state were free. The following year, in 1866, residents of the town where Granger had issued the order celebrated the anniversary as “Jubilee Day.” Eventually, the name changed to Juneteenth, and in 1979, it became a Texas state holiday. Then, in 2021, President Joe Biden signed a bill designating Juneteenth as a federal holiday.

The West’s abolition of chattel slavery was one of the greatest victories for liberty in our civilization’s history. Using an anniversary like today to celebrate the achievement and reflect on why it was necessary in the first place—or how it could have come about better—should be a rare point of unity in today’s politically fractured America.

But in the years since Biden signed the so-called Juneteenth National Independence Day Act, the holiday has become increasingly co-opted by progressives in media, academia, and politics as a way to push for radical policies like collective reparations or the exclusion of white people from celebrations.

Because of that, most of the rhetoric we see from those promoting Juneteenth sidesteps the actual issue of slavery. They do so because adherents of modern progressivism do not actually believe in self-ownership, the antithesis of slavery.

Only libertarians have a consistent commitment to self-ownership. We believe that nobody has the right to another’s labor. Nobody can justly claim ownership over another’s body or the fruits of their labor. Progressives do not believe this.

Modern American progressivism can be defined by its commitment to what are called positive rights. Where negative rights entail an obligation not to do something, like murder or steal, positive rights refer to the supposed right to be provided with something, like education or healthcare. When backed by the force of law, positive rights produce a legal system where electing not to use your labor toward some specific end is tantamount to a rights violation—which, therefore, warrants the use of force to compel that labor involuntarily.

These days, the coercion underlying progressive programs is shifted from the service provider to the working professionals taxed to pay for them. The average American works the equivalent of thirty-eight days a year exclusively to fund government programs. For those with higher incomes, that number is closer to sixty-five days. The only problem progressives have with this violent expropriation of wealth through taxation is that there’s not enough of it.

It is ironic that Americans are forced to work to fund a paid day off for federal employees to celebrate the end of involuntary labor. Much more absurd, however, is that much of our taxed income these days is—with the enthusiastic support of the progressive establishment—being sent to the Ukrainian government, which is quite literally enslaving young men and forcing them to fight against the Russians.

And, although it is not active at the moment, the House of Representatives recently passed a bill to automatically register young men for the draft with little to no pushback from progressives.

While detailing the brutality of slavery in colonial Virginia, Murray Rothbard wrote that the essence of slavery is that “human beings, with their inherent freedom of will, with individual desires and convictions and purposes, are used as capital, as tools for the benefit of their master. The slave is therefore habitually forced into types and degrees of work that he would not have freely undertaken.”

Progressives have demonstrated, through action and rhetoric, that they do not actually find the essence of slavery to be unjust. Their opposition to American chattel slavery is genuine, but it tends to boil down to it being racist.

Only libertarians have a consistent, principled, and ongoing opposition to slavery in all its forms and degrees. The abolition of chattel slavery was a major triumph for human liberty that’s worth commemorating. But we have a lot further to go—thanks in no small part to those most aggressively celebrating today.

*****

This article was published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Left-Wing NYT Columnist Bemoans What ‘We Liberals’ Have Done To West Coast

By Katelynn Richardson

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof argued Saturday that the West Coast’s version of liberalism just isn’t working, urging liberals to “face the painful fact that something has gone badly wrong where we’re in charge, from San Diego to Seattle.”

West Coast liberals accept a “yawning gulf between our values and our outcomes,” Kristof observed in his column, embracing contradictions like declaring “housing is a human right” while failing to actually “get people housed.” Kristof, who launched a bid to run for Oregon governor in 2022 but was found not to meet the three-year residency requirement to appear on the ballot, believes the problem is not liberalism itself, but the West Coast’s brand of liberalism that is “infected with an ideological purity that is focused more on intentions than on oversight and outcomes.”

“I’m an Oregonian who bores people at cocktail parties by singing the praises of the West, but the truth is that too often we offer a version of progressivism that doesn’t result in progress,” he wrote, pointing to disparities between liberal cities on the West Coast and East Coast.

“The two states with the highest rates of unsheltered homelessness are California and Oregon. The three states with the lowest rates of unsheltered homelessness are all blue ones in the Northeast: Vermont, New York, and Maine,” he wrote. “Liberal Massachusetts has some of the finest public schools in the country, while liberal Washington and Oregon have below-average high school graduation rates.”

He critiqued West Coast liberals’ tendency to be “performative rather than substantive,” citing Oregon’s decision to funnel education dollars into putting free tampons in the boys bathrooms beginning in kindergarten.

“The inability of progressives, particularly in the Portland metro area, to deal with the nitty-gritty of governing and to get something done is just staggering,” Democratic Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer, whose district includes most of Portland, told the NYT. “People are much more interested in ideology than in actual results.”

Kristof suggested the problem may be connected to the lack of political competition on the West Coast.

“Perhaps on the West Coast we have ideological purity because there isn’t much political competition,” he wrote. “Republicans are irrelevant in much of the Far West, so they can’t hold Democrats’ feet to the fire — leading Democrats in turn to wander unchecked farther to the left.”

In 2023, blue states had the highest rates of homelessness, with Washington, D.C., New York, Vermont and Oregon topping the list, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

*****

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

How Taxpayers Will Heavily Subsidize Democrat Boots on the Ground This Election

By Ben Weingarten

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Progressives are using legal loopholes and the power of the federal government to maximize Democrat votes in the 2024 election at taxpayers’ expense, RealClearInvestigations has found.

A dizzying array of overwhelmingly “democracy-focused” entities with ties to the Democratic Party operating as charities and funded with hundreds of millions of dollars from major liberal “dark money” vehicles are engaged in a sprawling campaign to register the voters, deliver them the ballots, and figuratively and sometimes literally harvest the votes necessary to defeat Donald Trump.

These efforts, now buttressed by the federal government, amplify and extend what Time magazine described as a “well-funded cabal of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies,” who had worked behind the scenes in 2020 “to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information” to defeat Trump and other Republicans. The “shadow campaigners,” Time declared, “were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.”

Heading into 2024, “there is not a ‘shadow’ campaign,” said Mike Howell, executive director of the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project. “There is an overt assault on President Trump and those who wish to vote for him occurring at every level of government and with the support of all major institutions.”

By contrast, Republican Party stalwarts lament that no comparable effort exists on their side. The GOP’s turnout and messaging efforts seek to thread a difficult needle by encouraging early and absentee voting and ballot-harvesting – pandemic-era measures that Trump and supporters blame for his 2020 electoral defeat – while the party simultaneously fights the mainly blue-state laws that made the practices possible. The party’s position is further complicated by its standard-bearer’s warnings of a rigged election bigger than in 2020, which some speculate could turn off moderate swing voters.

Electioneering ‘Super-Weapons’

The IRS permits tax-exempt nonprofit groups to engage in voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives so long as they do not “refer to any candidate or political party” nor conduct their activities “in a biased manner that favors (or opposes) one or more candidates prohibited.”

Tom Lopach: “We do the work that state election officials typically do not do – seeking out underrepresented voting-eligible Americans.”

These entities have become magnets for funds not only from wealthy donors, who can contribute without traditional campaign finance limits – and get a tax break to boot – but also abundantly endowed private foundations that are prohibited from engaging in partisan activities.

In recent years, dozens of progressive-oriented 501(c)(3)s, now pulling in upwards of $500 million annually, have engaged in purportedly neutral efforts to impact elections, according to Hayden Ludwig, director of Policy Research at the election integrity-focused advocacy group, Restoration of America.

In practice, critics like Ludwig argue, left-leaning charities flout the law by registering and mobilizing demographics that tend to vote disproportionately Democratic behind a veil of non-partisan democracy promotion.

During the 2020 election, for example, the Voter Participation Center solicited millions of ballot applications in swing states – many of them prefilled for respondents. This nonprofit, like its peers, is clear that it isn’t targeting just any voters, but what it and progressive activists have dubbed a “New American Majority” of “young people, people of color, and unmarried women.”

Tom Lopach, a longtime Democratic Party operative, and the center’s president and CEO, told RCI in a statement: “We do the work that state election officials typically do not do – seeking out underrepresented voting-eligible Americans Tom Lopach … This is difficult but necessary work that brings democracy to eligible Americans’ doorsteps.”

In 2020, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan showed how supposedly neutral efforts can have a partisan impact when they funneled some $400 million through two progressiveled but purportedly nonpartisan nonprofits into election offices across the country.

That money disproportionately went to jurisdictions that Joe Biden won in the pivotal battleground states that delivered his victory, often flowing to left-leaning nonprofits to whom election offices outsourced the administration of sometimes critical functions.

In April 2022, a primary conduit of these so-called “Zuckerbucks,” the Center for Tech and Civic Life, announced the launch of a successor to the 2020 effort – the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence, a five-year $80 million program “to envision, support, and celebrate excellence in U.S. election administration.”

“The left has assembled an impressive ‘election-industrial’ complex of non-profit organizations that is constantly working towards goals like ‘promoting participation’ targeting ‘underrepresented minorities,’” said Jason Snead, executive director of the conservative Honest Elections Project. Such terms, Snead says, “are code for identifying and mobilizing liberal voters.”

Election experts view such activities as potentially decisive.

*****

Continue reading this article at Real Clear Investigations.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Those Pesky Jobs Numbers thumbnail

Those Pesky Jobs Numbers

By Neland Nobel

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

“The Biden Administration has basically turned the US labor market into a Temp Agency for foreign workers. American workers are not getting jobs… They’re losing them.”

E.J. Antoni, Ph.D, Heritage Foundation

On Friday, June 7, the much-awaited jobs numbers were released and as usual, they can roil the markets for a few days.  Also, select politicians may use the occasion for their own purposes.

From the vantage point of markets, the belief is that “unemployment” numbers, if soft enough, will prompt the FED to relent and start the long-awaited “easing”, while if they are strong, it means such a move will be delayed further. This obsession with “unemployment” and “easing” really does not do justice to the issue of whether the FED is easing or not.  See our recent article, “Are We Back To the Everything Bubble.”

Yahoo Finance showed typical coverage: “The US labor market added more jobs than expected in May, defying previous signs of a slowdown in the economy. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics released Friday showed the labor market added 272,000 nonfarm payroll jobs in May, significantly more additions than the 180,000 expected by economists.”

A lot of jobs were created.  Great for Biden! 

While more jobs were created, the unemployment rose to 4%. Huh?  Usually, that is caused by a shift in labor participation.

We begin this journey noting the difference between “The Establishment Survey” and the “Household Survey”.  The Establishment survey is conducted by the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) while the Household survey is conducted by the Census Bureau. One is basically business reporting on the number of jobs and the other is household reporting. Recently, there has been a notable divergence between the job numbers reported by the two surveys.  The difference is large, over 4 million jobs. In part, this may be because the Household survey counts people, not jobs, and thus does not count the same as the Establishment survey does a person who holds multiple jobs.

chart

Sometimes one survey shows gains and the other shows losses. But as noted, The Household survey has recently shown substantially fewer jobs created than the Establishment survey.  the Establishment survey is the one used most often by the media.

Besides these differences, critics point out other things about such numbers.  First, they are subject to revisions and those future revisions are almost always downward.  Secondly,  it becomes a discretionary choice of which numbers to emphasize.  This allows those with a political agenda to make a selective case, knowing full well the majority of the public will never sense the statistical sleight of hand. Just to ensure your eyes glaze over, below is some further detail.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

An Argument Against the Arizona Right to Abortion Initiative

By Ellie Fromm

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

We the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.

Above is the entirety of the preamble to the Constitution of the State of Arizona. Similarly to the Constitution of the United States of America, these Arizonans thank the Lord their God for the liberties later listed in the document. It then follows that these liberties must align with general traditional Christian principles, as these writers recognized their liberties originally flow from Him. As acknowledged by philosophers and theologians throughout time, rights flow from God Himself.

The Arizona Right to Abortion Initiative, a recent potential amendment to the Arizona Constitution, is currently collecting signatures so it may be placed on the Arizona ballot for the November 2024 election. This Initiative would fundamentally change the Arizona Constitution and make reversing it almost impossible. Not only would it codify abortion into law, but it would grant each and every Arizonan the supposed “right” to murder their offspring in the womb.

This Initiative begins by stating the following:

“Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion, and the state shall not enact, adopt or enforce any law, regulation, policy or practice that does any of the following…”

The document then lists the amendment’s definitions of “fetal viability,” the instances when the State may interfere, and defines “compelling state interest.” Essentially, this amendment intends to set the “right” of all Arizonans to abortion until “there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.” In other words, abortion would be legal in Arizona almost up until the moment of birth.

I will proceed by laying out two arguments against the Arizona Right to Abortion Initiative.

Firstly, abortion is unethical and inhumane, causing death to the child and trauma, injury, and, in some cases, death to the mother. Forcibly removing a child, for whatever reason, is wrong, but so is confusing pregnant women who may think their only option is abortion due to their circumstances. These babies have committed no crime and, therefore, deserve no punishment.

The Guttmacher Institute estimates that, from 1973-2017, 63,459,781 abortions occurred in the United States. This number is roughly 16 times larger than the population of Maricopa County, 8.5 times the population of the state of Arizona, and 1.6 times the population of California. All those people were lost through abortion.

Writing abortion into the state constitution will not slow these numbers, but rather encourage and increase them in the State of Arizona.

Second, this initiative goes against the preamble to the Arizona Constitution. In no way does this initiative affirm or uphold the preamble, that citizens are “grateful to Almighty God”. Instead, it violates this belief by violating the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness addressed by the Constitution of the United States if America. Gratefulness to God means using the law to protect those who cannot protect themselves, not enabling violence against them.

For the sake of the young, and in recognition of the state and national preambles, vote “no” on the Arizona Right to Abortion Initiative this November. Continue to grant your fellow Arizonans the right you yourself enjoy, the right to life.

*****

Ellie Fromm is a student at Hillsdale College and has worked as an intern with The Prickly Pear since 2022. Her published articles in The Prickly Pear can be accessed here.

Follow Ellie Fromm on X (@elliefromm23). 

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

All Republicans But This 1 Vote To Hold Garland In Contempt

By Robert McGreevy

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution Wednesday to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena to release an audio tape of President Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur.

The resolution passed along party lines 216-207, according to The Associated Press (AP).

Republican Ohio Rep. David Joyce was the lone GOP no vote, NBC News reported. Eight members of Congress abstained from voting, according to the National Review.

The House Judiciary Committee recommended that the House of Representatives hold Garland in contempt in May after he refused to comply with a Judiciary subpoena to produce the audio recordings of Biden’s interview with Hur in his classified documents case.

Biden, upon recommendation from Garland, invoked executive privilege to block the release of the tapes in May.

Hur elected not to levy criminal charges against Biden in the case but the transcripts of their conversation showed “President Biden willfully and unlawfully retained classified materials while he was a private citizen,” Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordanwrote in May.

“He is refusing to comply with a lawful subpoena,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a Wednesday press conference. “We can’t allow the Department of Justice, an executive branch agency, to hide information from Congress.”

“We have a right to know if Robert Hur’s recommendation against prosecuting President Biden was warranted and the best evidence, as chairman Jordan said, was the audio recordings because they provide critical insight that the transcript itself cannot provide. We have to know if the transcript is accurate,” Johnson said.

“The Attorney General doesn’t get to decide whether he hides the tape,” the Speaker concluded.

The contempt charge will be referred to the Department of Justice, which Garland heads, for prosecution, though it is unlikely the federal agency will choose to prosecute their department head, according to The AP.

The House vote makes Garland the third Attorney General in U.S. history to earn a contempt charge from Congress. In 2012 the House held Barack Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt and in 2019 the House voted to hold President Trump’s Attorney General, William Barr, in contempt for defying subpoenas related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s RussiaGate investigations. In both cases, the DOJ elected not to bring charges.

*****

This article was published by the Daily Caller and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

All Republicans But One Vote to Hold Garland in Contempt

By Robert McGreevy

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution Wednesday to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena to release an audio tape of President Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur.

The resolution passed along party lines 216-207, according to The Associated Press (AP).

Republican Ohio Rep. David Joyce was the lone GOP no vote, NBC News reported. Eight members of Congress abstained from voting, according to the National Review.

The House Judiciary Committee recommended that the House of Representatives hold Garland in contempt in May after he refused to comply with a Judiciary subpoena to produce the audio recordings of Biden’s interview with Hur in his classified documents case.

Biden, upon recommendation from Garland, invoked executive privilege to block the release of the tapes in May.

Hur elected not to levy criminal charges against Biden in the case but the transcripts of their conversation showed “President Biden willfully and unlawfully retained classified materials while he was a private citizen,” Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordanwrote in May.

“He is refusing to comply with a lawful subpoena,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a Wednesday press conference. “We can’t allow the Department of Justice, an executive branch agency, to hide information from Congress.”

“We have a right to know if Robert Hur’s recommendation against prosecuting President Biden was warranted and the best evidence, as chairman Jordan said, was the audio recordings because they provide critical insight that the transcript itself cannot provide. We have to know if the transcript is accurate,” Johnson said.

“The Attorney General doesn’t get to decide whether he hides the tape,” the Speaker concluded.

The contempt charge will be referred to the Department of Justice, which Garland heads, for prosecution, though it is unlikely the federal agency will choose to prosecute their department head, according to The AP.

The House vote makes Garland the third Attorney General in U.S. history to earn a contempt charge from Congress. In 2012 the House held Barack Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt and in 2019 the House voted to hold President Trump’s Attorney General, William Barr, in contempt for defying subpoenas related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s RussiaGate investigations. In both cases, the DOJ elected not to bring charges.

*****

This article was published by the Daily Caller and is reproduced with permission.

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Where Have All the Left Wings Gone?

By Craig J. Cantoni

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

American and European media are alarmed about right-wing extremists but not left-wing ones.

Chickens sold at the supermarket come with both right and left wings. Passenger jets also come with right and left wings. But judging by the way that news is covered in America and Europe, there are mostly right wings in politics but few left wings.

More often than not, those who are right of center are characterized pejoratively as right-wingers, right-wing extremists, and reactionaries. At the same time, those who are left of center are characterized euphemistically as moderates, progressives, liberals, democratic socialists, or greens. They are rarely characterized as left-wingers, left-wing extremists, or revolutionaries.

Currently, for example, reporters, news anchors, and commentators are hyperventilating about elections in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and the U.S. being won by politicians and parties on the right, all of whom are being labeled with the aforementioned pejoratives.

Election coverage by the BBC and by DW News out of Berlin used the pejoratives so much that they made it seem as if the Reichstag was draped in swastikas, and as if the sound of hobnailed jackboots could be heard on the Champs de Elysee.

Even the Wall Street Journal follows the media herd in using the pejoratives. The same for Clay and Buck, the two guys who replaced Rush Limbaugh on talk radio. By going along with the pejoratives used by the left to describe conservatives, they are shooting themselves in the foot, or, as the pejoratives imply, a jack-booted foot.

Maybe leftists are correct in their claim that conservatives aren’t very bright.

The tendency to give leftists a pass was seen in the recent coverage of Claudia Sheinbaum winning the presidency of Mexico. Most of the coverage in the mockingbird media was ecstatic and overlooked her left-wing history. Also overlooked was the high probability that she is going to perpetuate the legacy of the Spanish Empire of a corrupt one-party state and a two-class society of aristocrats at the top and peasants below.

For the record, I don’t have a rooster in the semantic cockfight between the left and right. My belief is that both sides have extremist elements, have authoritarian tendencies, want to use government force to remake the world into their image, and have leaders who engage in demagoguery.

In that sense, the left-right distinction is outdated. After all, it goes back to how the French Assembly sat centuries ago, with the pro-monarchists on one side and the anti-monarchists on the other. A better alternative would be a ten-point scale of government power, with a zero representing anarchism (no government), a ten representing dictatorship, and a four representing just enough government to protect life, liberty and property while aiding those who are truly incapable of supporting themselves. It’s debatable where U.S. and European parties and governments rank on this scale, but almost all of them rank much higher than a four.       

The election winners in Europe who are being castigated with such pejoratives as “right-wing extremists” don’t want to replace democracy with authoritarianism. As with like-minded politicians in the U.S., they want to stop unlimited immigration, they want immigrants to assimilate, they want affordable energy, and they want an economy that benefits working stiffs and not just elites. 

Whether one agrees or disagrees with their goals, it’s over the top to call them right-wing extremists. Saying that about them while overlooking left-wing extremism is just as shortsighted as boarding an airplane with only one wing.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Chinese Building Is Globalists’ Dystopian Dream for Us All

By Catherine Salgado

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Globalists like the World Economic Forum (WEF) have a dream to force all of us peasants to live in 15 minute cities—in fact, such experiments have already been launched in Tempe, Arizona, and Oxford, England. You will have your tiny apartment, stores, restaurants, all within a short walk of your home—and George Orwell would tell you to run in the other direction.

A recent article (see below) describes the Chinese version of this dystopia, with everything in one building. By the way, when the article praises how “swanky” the building is, take it with a grain of salt—in China, infrastructure is consistently badly built and the quality is always exaggerated. But even if the buildings were wonderful, happiness isn’t just in having material necessities. Freedom is key.

There’s a reason humans have always romanticized pastoral life, why owning land was a wealth symbol, and why the American dream used to be owning property. Freedom and the space to exercise it—those are things that the Chinese building doesn’t have, and that’s why it’s a dystopian nightmare instead of a utopian paradise.

“[Climate Depot] Thousands of people live in one of China’s largest apartment block which is so well equipped residents never actually have to leave.

This company is able to provide residents with everything they need, so they never have to go outside again…Would that be a utopian dream or a dystopian nightmare?

It seems at least 20,000 people are living that reality regardless in one of China’s largest buildings…[facilities include] a massive food court, barber shops, nail salons, medium-sized supermarkets, swimming pools, and even internet cafes….And if you’re curious about how much it costs to live here, small apartments without windows (yes, you read that correctly) usually go for around 1,500 RMB per month ($210), according to local news outlets.

Meanwhile, some of the larger properties with balconies are on the market for 4,000 RMB per month ($570).”

Note the without windows option. The average monthly salary in China is reportedly around $1300, so $570 a month rent for a windowed apartment isn’t chump change.

Unfortunately, if the Democrats and their globalist buddies get their way, this building plan could be coming soon to a town near you…

*****

Catherine Salgado is an accomplished writer and investigative reporter who publishes daily in her Substack column, Pro Deo et Libertate (For God and Liberty). This superb column provides news and opinion pieces from an honest, common-sense perspective in the spheres of culture, politics, liberal arts, and religion. The Prickly Pear is grateful for her permission to reproduce her public writings and recommends that our readers subscribe to Catherine’s superb Substack column. Please consider a paid subscription for full access to all of her excellent and informative writings.

Follow Catherine Salgado on X (@CatSalgado32). 

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Weekend Read: Will Americans Elect the Deep State in November?

By Conlan Salgado

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

As I’ve mentioned previously, the Democrats and the Administrative State have looked at democracy and found it wanting. In fact, with the meteoric resurgence of Donald Trump, they have diagnosed it as a complete failure. A normal person might consider an unfairly influenced (the Hunter Biden laptop ploy) or an outright rigged election or perhaps the politicized prosecution of the popular and leading political opponent by four partisan prosecutors, a biased and compromised judge and a partisan DOJ the symptoms of a failing democracy.

In stark contrast, the definition of a failing democracy for the fourth branch of government is simple: the election and imminent re-election of Donald Trump. This is, in part, why the Democrats in collusion with the Deep State following Trump’s historic 2016 win launched a three year performative op using the resources of the federal government and a special prosecutor to convince the American public that democracy had literally failed: Trump had been dishonestly elected through the social media activity of Putin bots!

According to the Democrats, ‘democracy’ has certainly been ill before. Typically, that is occurring during the administrations of every Republican president. But democracy has never been terminally ill. George Bush, for example, had some populist tendencies, but he understood that he had an obligation to the Deep State to start foreign wars and not to win them. Most Republican presidents, with the exception of Ronald Reagan, have also understood that they must increase the regulatory power of the Administrative State, and that any attempt to wage systemic de-regulation qualifies as a fundamental attack on ‘democracy’.

After the presidency of Obama, certain political norms had been established by the Deep State which future
presidents, both Republican and Democrat, were expected to abide by: managed decline, the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, the elevation of Iran and the denigration—as much as possible within the confines of an alliance—of Israel, and the probable permanent American military involvement in the Middle East.

Trump, the oversized dumb orangutang that he was, did not understand any of this. He brought back manufacturing jobs to the U.S. According to Forbes, ten times as many in his first 21 months on the job as Obama’s last 21 months. He cut business taxes, leading to the repatriation of some $300 billion in the first
quarter of 2018 out of what the Federal Reserve estimates is $1 trillion in multinational profits held abroad.

He accomplished the Nobel Prize-worthy Abraham Accords and reduced Iran’s cash reserves to near zero. He withdrew American troops from Syria, and despite treasonable behavior from his own generals, he managed to withdraw without making it an international scandal. He built over 500 miles of southern border wall. He increased funding for the Pentagon, including for research and development and also funded the first major modernization of the nuclear command-and-control system since the Cold War ended. He was the first president since Reagan not to start a foreign war.

The Trump presidency left Joe Biden with the extremely unfair task of having to start two foreign wars all on his own. In short, in the eyes of the Deep State and the Dems, Trump was not simply a soaring success. Rather, he was an actual traitor.

He once again gave the American people a taste for prosperity and strength—both foreign and domestic. He renovated the idea of taking pride in one’s national community as Ronald Reagan did. Trump combined policy success with the strengthening of the American spirit, both of which Obama had spent eight hard years working to dismantle.

Trump also brought out the worst in the unelected people living deep within the permanent bureaucracy. That is, he drew out the virulent anti-democratic tendencies they had always harbored but never explicitly advocated. He ripped their mask off and demonstrated the real nature of the deep state.

Now, ideas are best argued for or against in the way that they are embodied or acted out. It is correct to identify the administrative state as an existential threat to American democracy because American democracy is embodied in three branches of government: legislative, executive, judicial and two of them are directly empowered through elections. These branches are supposed to be separate. Let’s pretend, for the sake of this paragraph, that we are living in pre-May 30, 2024 America, prior to the conviction of former President Donald J. Trump in a NYC sham trial.

A government so constructed (pre-May 30th) embodies the idea of individual sovereignty—namely that sovereignty resides in the people, i.e., We The People. It also embodies a certain idea of power, which, if legitimate, is derived from the people’s sovereignty—namely, that power tends to corrupt and tempt those who hold it to abandon their duty of using it for the good of all – ‘all’ being circumscribed by identity of citizenship.

The administrative state embodies an antithetical idea of sovereignty and power. It centralizes and unifies the three branches of government into one monolith. It embodies the idea that sovereignty is derived not from the consent of the governed but from the divine right of expertise—namely, that power is the legitimate right of those who possess specialized knowledge in the mechanics of governance and economics. As a corollary, it embodies the notion that power is its own mandate for those who are intelligent and skilled enough to acquire it. Power is the private property of those wealthy enough to buy or savvy enough to secure a share, and therefore may be directed to private ends such as personal enrichment.

Quite apart from the nitty-gritty of modern administrative politics, the above reasons are all indicative of why American democracy cannot co-exist alongside the Deep State. Indeed, they have not co-existed peacefully, and as of May 30, 2024, the former was extinguished. In other words, the democratic apparatus was re-formed – the federal government colluded with partisan state prosecutors both in terms of intent and strategy – Alvin Bragg and Jack Smith are trying to achieve the same end of putting Trump in jail and eliminating his reelection.

We know that the number three lawyer at Biden’s DOJ quit his prestigious job in DC to take a diddly-squat job in a state prosecutor’s office – the same office that was bringing 34 felony counts against Trump. More importantly, the resources of ‘democratic governments’ were used to seek authoritarian ends. After the events of May 30th, we can safely say that the federal government embodies the same ideas about power that the federal bureaucracy does, including lack of separation of powers, the direction of public power to advance private ends, etc.

In acknowledging that Donald Trump forced them to show their wicked agenda, the Deep State and their Donkey have dedicated themselves to completely re-structuring the American government into a new system which most closely resembles the Deep State itself.

They intend to transform the current Federal government into a unified, centralized, one-party, regulatory apparatus dedicated to private interests where not even nominal separation of powers exists. The likely re-election of Trump in November has forced the Deep State to abandon caution and accelerate to breakneck speed.

We are witnessing this calculated destruction most powerfully in the transfer of our institutions from democratic forces and functions to anti-civilizational forces and functions. These include, most obviously, the deliberate rigging of a courtroom and jury system, the violation of both explicit Constitutional rights and implicit judicial norms, and the use of one branch of government to ensure the unfair influencing of another.

As I have touched on previously in the context of campus protests, our educational institutions are meant to safeguard and propagate knowledge, which is really the activity of naming things properly. Instead, our
elite universities have capitulated to a movement which engages in the deliberate misidentification of things. They call Israel a terror state and the Hamas-Palestinian coalition “freedom fighters”. To deliberately and wrongfully name things is to destabilize the enterprise of knowledge at its foundation.

Likewise, the media, which is meant to safeguard and spread the free and responsible movement of information and to hold those in power to account have dedicated themselves to the irresponsible restriction and censorship of information and the primary task of protecting the interests of a permanent political overclass.

Meanwhile, the DOJ, which is meant to safeguard and prosecute the law, has not simply committed individual acts of treason, but rather, is engaged in a regime of treason against the Constitution. Federal law enforcement agencies have been used, in the past several years, to arrest peaceful pro-life journalists, raid the private residence of the current President’s primary opponent and critic, take journalists into custody, engage in
widespread censorship enforcement of narratives not sponsored by the state, spy illegally on a presidential campaign, and collude in the suppression of relevant information regarding Joseph Biden’s son Hunter in order to influence the election in a partisan way.

We now know, through mounting credible empirical evidence, that Trump causes an actual mental illness in federal bureaucrats and those of the elitist and Democrat persuasion. We can laugh or sneer at the so-called Trump Derangement Syndrome, but it is real and will intensify as the election nears justifying behaviors and actions in the Left  that are unlawful, profoundly unAmerican and even treasonous. The Syndrome often is joked about with fun poked at those suffering with it by everyday, common sense Americans.

Ah well, such is humor in an age when nothing is funny. It’s important to laugh, though, so you don’t descend into the hatefulness and vengeance the left is characterized by. It’s also important to remember that Joe Biden has lost control of much of his cognitive and physical being. His virtual absence from competent decision making and directing the political and ideological agenda of his party has opened America up to an unelected deep state elite whose intent is not saving but rather destroying the democratic principles that underlie and protect our Republic. It is on full display and fully confirmed on the May 30th conviction of Donald J. Trump. As we approach the November 5th election, this dangerous and historic reality should guide all Americans toward how our national headlines should read on November 6th, the day after.

*****

Conlan Salgado, is a college senior. He is an astute political observer and highly informed conservative. America needs more young patriots and gifted writers to awaken citizens to the existential danger our nation faces in the decades-long political war with a radical leftist party and culture increasingly out-of-control. We recommend all of his superb writings. Access Conlan Salgado’s essays in The Prickly Pear here.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

The Contrarians Were Right About Covid Hysteria

By David Harsanyi

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Editors’ Note: We are quite proud, that in our very early history, The Prickly Pear chose to be a skeptic of the Covid lockdowns and endorsed the Great Barrington Declaration. Having an esteemed physician as one of our editors helped, although our innate suspicion of government overreach and common sense was equally helpful. We chronicled the many errors of the top-down, medical professional panic as well as the national and local initiatives that at the time seemed nonsensical. With the benefit of hindsight, many of these policies look downright sinister. Lockdowns destroyed many small businesses in an arbitrary manner without compensation, destroyed jobs, blew up huge public debt with resulting inflation, sabotaged a Presidency, trampled on civil liberties, and upended the education of our children. Many of the rules were known to be false as they were being promulgated. They did not save lives as evidence shows excess deaths were lower in both countries and U.S. states that had either the lightest lockdown policies or none at all. Major damage was done to the country and the world by a bureaucracy that hatched the idea of “gain of function” virus tinkering and then their lockdown policies that were inflicted on all of us. One final casualty that may never recover is the reputation of our public health authorities. Oh, and Stephen Colbert.

And the fearmongers did irreparable damage.

If you head over to “The Federalist” entry on Wikipedia, you will find, among other smears of our little operation, a “COVID-19 pandemic misinformation” section. It’s a sad reminder of how authoritarians misuse the idea of “misinformation” to quash debate and control the conversation.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic,” Wikipedia contends, “The Federalist published many pieces that contained false information, pseudoscience, and contradictions or misrepresentations of the recommendations of public health authorities.” According to Media Matters for America,” the entry goes on, “The Federalist published articles calling on the government to quickly end social distancing directions, and to open businesses again.”

To begin with, even if Federalist writers had turned out to be completely wrong about lockdowns and social distancing, calculating the tradeoffs of public policy and forming opinions that conflict with public-health officials isn’t any kind of “misinformation.” It’s the way we debate in an open society.

Public-health officials are preternaturally risk averse. They see the world through the prism of safety, often ignoring— among many other factors—personal freedoms, economic consequences, and social disruptions. Safetyism can lead to some of the worst infringements of individual rights. That is why we don’t live in a public-health dictatorship.

Or rather, why we didn’t until Covid.

The thing is, though, most of the time our writers weren’t wrong. It is now indisputable that shutdowns inflicted deep harm on children and destabilized the economy. It is also highly unlikely that, after it was clear Covid variants would continue to spread, keeping businesses closed for months saved lives.

And “social distancing” rules were definitely bunk. Fauci admitted as much in a January interview with the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. “It sort of just appeared, that six feet is going to be the distance,” he explained.

“It sort of just appeared” doesn’t sound like the vigorous inquiry we were promised by the self-ordained pontiff of “science.” Yet anyone who dared to tread within, say, five feet of another person was accused of being in a “death cult” and often censored on social media.

One of the problems was that Fauci could never admit to being unsure of anything. Remember when he told Americans, “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask,” and then, months later,  he wanted us wearing two of them at the same time. Yet governments almost always enacted his every suggestion.  

Fauci also admitted to lying about the threshold for herd immunity because “polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine.” Worse, when three scientists — Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford — released the “Great Barrington Declaration,” questioning the efficacy of lockdowns and warning, among other things, about the damaging “physical and mental health impacts” of closing schools, Fauci colluded with others to suppress the document, plotting a “quick and devastating published takedown.” 

Read the declaration. They were right. He was wrong.

In any event, one of Wikipedia’s citations allegedly proving The Federalist spread social-distancing “misinformation” was written by an academic physician from an Ivy League institution who wrestled with ways to help flatten the curve. The piece is logical and cautious. It begins like so:

COVID-19 is severe. There is no doubt about that. We are now also learning that it is not a matter of if but when many of us will get coronavirus, whether we develop symptoms or not. Our only hope is to ‘flatten the curve,’ relieve stress on the medical system, and wait for a vaccine.

That sounds exactly like the framing of public-health officials before “flatten the curve” evolved into “shutter your business and shut up.”

Another Wikipedia footnote regarding “false information” leads to a completely factual opinion piece that points out that Zeke Emanuel, then named to Joe Biden’s Covid task force, had spent years arguing that people older than 75 were a suck on our resources and the elderly should be vaccinated last. Pointing out this person’s ugly positions was well within the norms of debate.

In another instance of alleged misinformation, a Federalist founder is accused of attacking the “prominent analysis from Imperial College London.” More like infamous analysis, as the model turned out to be a dubious guesstimation. Maybe it’s Wikipedia that needs a misinformation entry?

Now, I’m not contending everything The Federalist published about Covid turned out to be correct. But the alleged misinformation articles on the site are normal pieces of contrarianism. We need more of that, not less. Recall that Facebook, pressured by the government, banned any mention of the Chinese lab-leak theory, which is now widely believed to be true.

Sure, there are limits to skepticism. Reflexive disbelief of everything is no better than the opposite. It often manifests in conspiratorial thinking. But it is clear now that no one undermined trust in our public-health institutions like those who used rickety “science” to shut down businesses, churches, schools, and speech.

*****

This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: YouTube screenshot The Late Show on CBS

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.