Vilnius, NATO & American Attitudes: A Take On The Bigger Picture thumbnail

Vilnius, NATO & American Attitudes: A Take On The Bigger Picture

/in , , , , /by

By Marvin A. Treiger

Editors’ Note: The Prickly Pear welcomes varying opinions and interpretations of issues both domestic and international. The following article by Marvin A. Treiger concerning the Ukraine Russian war accompanies Victor Davis Hanson’s article about the history of Russian war fighting and the implications for the current and future situation on the ground in Ukraine and Russia. Both articles are highly informative and give the readers of The Prickly Pear important perspectives on a critical foreign policy issue and threat for this and future administrations, especially as we enter the 2024 Presidential election cycle.

Face it. In your bones you want Ukraine to win.  Every decent American wants this outcome. It’s in our DNA and goes back to our Founding. It is natural for us to support plucky, freedom-fighting patriots against Empires led by Russian dictators like Putin.

NATO, led by the US under Biden and at a great cost, has given Ukrainians the military wherewithal to reduce the Russian invasion to a stalemate. Cracks in Putin’s rule, the weakness and ineptitude of his army, and his teetering international support (with Turkey supporting Swedish entry into NATO last week) have thrown Russia onto its back foot.

The future is unknown but one thing is clear. Russia has failed in its effort of the 2/24/22 invasion to conquer Ukraine. This is very good news for the future of Europe and for our emerging and ultimately greater conflict with China.

Sadly, as these momentous events are unfolding, we on the right have chosen a path of quasi-neo-isolationism characterized by disarray, misreadings of history, and non-Reaganesque squishiness.

Let us take the question of NATO. Too many Republicans have falsely argued that any expansion of NATO threatens war and even nuclear war because Russia sees NATO at its borders as an existential threat.

The reality is that NATO is, has been, and continues to be a defensive alliance with no mechanisms to conduct offensive operations and with even limited control of its members in support of defensive actions. This by no means indicates that NATO just sits pretty without throwing its weight around but Putin knows he won’t be invaded. He has other motives.

Membership in NATO eliminates the possibility of his gobbling up countries so he can restore his dream of some semblance of the old Russian or Soviet empires. Hence, he absorbed Georgia in early 2008 with Bush looking on, and Crimea in 2014 with Obama looking out the window. Add to that, his lo-level war in the Donbas, starting also in 2014, and none of which was part of NATO.

Putin has effectively eliminated the “buffer” state concept used effectively during the Cold War to contribute to avoiding war in Europe. Today, Putin does not see “buffer’ states but “plums” to be plucked. He has forced NATO’s hand.

This is why NATO membership was desperately sought by Finland and Sweden. Multiply that wish by a thousand and you get Zelensky and the Ukraine.

The Slavic and related peoples’ mindset has been as variable as their checkered, bloody, and despotic history. To some, Kyiv and Ukraine belong to Russia; to others, Russia and Moscow originate and belong to Kyiv and therefore Ukraine. Their histories contain a host of issues almost impossible to settle which remain eternally convenient for use as propaganda in the present by all sides.

Wisely, the Vilnius Conference, strongly supported by Germany and the US, rejected Zelesnky’s pleas to join NATO leaving a path to entry to an indeterminate future.

NATO’s Documents forbid membership entry while a nation applying is at war or with uncertain and challenged borders. Also, there are other conditions for membership such as the nature of civic institutions, etc., that must be resolved prior to admittance.

Ukraine is presently the second most corrupt nation in Europe with Russia (no surprise) taking top honors. Eventually, membership for Ukraine is a stated goal of NATO but anything more at this time –  such as a definite plan for membership – unnecessarily escalates the tensions with Moscow.

Membership in the EU has different standards and could work as a transition since achieving prosperity can assist reform. Ukraine would need years to rebuild as well. These are matters best settled on the ground for the present.

Gradualism regarding Ukrainian entry into the EU and NATO is a dramatic departure from the utopian essence that informed the neo-conservatism of the George Bush administration. We learned the hard way that a foreign, occupying nation cannot generate a modern democracy on unsuitable soli. Iraq and Afghanistan drove that lesson home.

That said, we don’t want to overcorrect and embrace some variant of neo-isolationism.  Libertarians call for cutting all ties with NATO which leaves us where exactly? Tucker Carlson has promoted pro-Russian bloggers like Andrew Tate. Pro-Putin propaganda needs to be seen for what it is.

What then should be our stance on Ukraine? Our candidates need to forthrightly declare that our goal is a viable, independent Ukraine with secure borders.They have not yet done so. What, for example, have Trump and DeSantis said about the war?

Trump says, if President, he would end the war in one day. Does he think Putin is Kim Jong-un and getting Kim to stop missile testing – as Trump did – is in any way comparable to halting this major European War? At best, this is meaningless bravado; at worst it is dangerous nonsense.

DeSantis has been, well, “squishy” is a good word, going from “territorial dispute” (an error he pulled back from) to a measured ambiguity.

Trump and DeSantis have both opposed the use of  “cluster bombs”, which while a worthy line to draw is small ball in the larger context of the war. In fact, does it not imply they would support other forms of military support? Why not say so? Why not say they support Ukraine and would be more successful and less error prone than Biden in doing so? I can’t help but wonder how Reagan would be speaking about all this.

Our bigger problem is, you guessed it, Biden. Our knee-jerk reaction to him distorts our objectivity. If Biden is for it, we must be against it. On the whole, this is a natural and appropriate reaction. After all, it’s hard to find here a single domestic policy that we can support. The same goes for most of his foreign policy. Not only that but even if that blind squirrel picks up an acorn now and then, he will, as even Obama said, “F—k it up!”

On Ukraine however, Biden deserves our support but with plenty of our criticism. Remember he began by offering Zelensky “a ride” out of the country. In other words, he was quite prepared to cede Ukraine to Russia. Then, when Zelensky’s resistance caught fire, Biden massively steps up military support, exceeding all other NATO countries combined seemingly abandoning our long-term goal initiated by Trump for Europe to pay its own way. Then he seems oblivious to the dangers of a wider nuclear war; then he is suspiciously implicated in blowing up the Nordic pipeline; then he depletes our ammo storage without replacements leading to offer, of all inhumane weapons, cluster bombs. 

Biden is senile, incompetent, and a puppet of Obama-related forces. He is wild hair and a loose cannon. We know his unsavory history of racism, groping, plagiarism, serial lying, unending errors in foreign affairs, and just plain smallness and vindictiveness as a person. Not to mention his leadership of a corrupt family crime syndicate unequaled in the American history of the Presidency. 

And yet, our most profound national interests coincide with the main thrust of support for a Ukraine victory that chastens the Russians.

Here is why I believe we must prevail in Ukraine. It has been rightly said that unified control of the Eurasian continent would likely come to dominate the world.

The China/Russia axis is potentially that power. Nixon/Kissinger brilliantly prevented this during the Cold War. We must see to it again in our generation. China and Russia have formally formed a so-called “unbreakable alliance”. A Russian victory in the war – which still could happen in a prolonged stalemate – would solidify that alliance. 

The Defeat of Russia in Ukraine pulls the rug out from under that eventuality. It also makes China less likely to try an invasion of Taiwan.

China, in any case, knows it is not yet ready to take on the US. Our current ammunition depletion and oil reserve drains and self-defeating feckless military leadership notwithstanding

Its stepped-up harassment of Taiwan militarily is a calculated strategy designed to weaken Taiwan internally and is succeeding to a degree. China is committed – wisely from their point of view – to a longer-range strategy.

Facing a weakened Russia, the Chinese are more likely to go after EurAsian raw materials than treat the Russkies as an “equal” partner. They have plenty of historical claims they can drudge up to that end. 

A weakened Russia pressed by an increasingly formidable China may even one day finally turn to its historic European links which should have been our more explicit goal at the end of the Cold War. Sadly, Yeltsin’s weakness as a leader stopped initial steps in that direction.

On the contrary, if Russia prevails, then our entire worldwide strategic position is weakened and Taiwan is surely next.

My point in advancing this bigger picture is not for the sake of speculation or prediction. And, of course, I realize, so much that is unpredictable will take place.

But, over time, fundamentals abide and we need to, like the Chinese seem to be doing, take the long view.

For now, Biden is leading Western support for Ukraine’s defensive war and deserves our support with massive criticism. That is a fact.

Let’s get rid of Biden or whatever radical Democrat they throw up in the next election and set the whole ship of state aright. If we succeed, we will have the best chance of forging, or beginning to forge, a new national unity.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Electric Vehicles: Costly Virtue Signaling Forced on America by Left thumbnail

Electric Vehicles: Costly Virtue Signaling Forced on America by Left

/in , , , , , /by

By David Harsanyi

The Left likes to treat skeptics of electrical cars as if they were Luddites. Truth is, making an existing product less efficient, but more expensive, doesn’t really meet the definition of innovation.

Even the purported amenities and technological advances EV makers like to brag about in their ads have been a regular feature of gas-powered vehicles going back generations. At best, EVs, if they fulfill their promise, are a lateral technology.

This is why there is no real “emerging market” for EVs in the United States as much as there’s an industrial policy in place that props up EVs with government purchases, propaganda, state subsidies, cronyism, taxpayer-backed loans, and edicts. The green “revolution” is an elite-driven, top-down technocratic project.

And it’s increasingly clear that the only reason giant rent-seeking carmakers are so heavily invested in EV development is that the government is promising to artificially limit the production of gas-powered cars.

In August 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to set a target for half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 to be zero-emission. California claims it is banning combustion engines in all new cars in about 10 years. So, carmakers adopt business models to deal with these distorted incentives and contrived theoretical markets of the future.

In today’s real-world economy, Ford projects it’s going to lose $3 billion on electric vehicles in 2023, bringing its EV losses to $5.1 billion over two years. In 2021, Ford reportedly lost $34,000 on every EV it made. This year, it was losing more than $58,000 on every EV. In a normal world, Ford would be dramatically scaling back EV production, not expanding it.

Remember that next time we need to bail out Detroit.

Then again, we’re already bailing them out, I suppose. Last week, the U.S. Energy Department lent Ford — again, a company that loses tens of thousands of dollars on every EV it sells — another $9.2 billion in taxpayer dollars for a South Korean battery project. One imagines no sane bank would do it. The cost of EV batteries has gone up, not down, over the past few years.

Ford says these upfront losses are part of a “start-up mentality.” We’re still pretending EVs are a new idea, rather than an inferior one. But scaremongering about climate and a misplaced romanticizing of “manufacturing” jobs have softened up the public for this kind of waste.

In the real world, there is Lordstown. In 2019, after General Motors — which also loses money on every EV sold — shut down a plant in Lordstown, Ohio, then-President Donald Trump made a big deal of publicly pressuring the auto giant to rectify the situation. CEO Mary Barra lent Lordstown Motors, a new EV outfit, $40 million to retrofit the plant. Ohio also gave GM an additional $60 million.

You may remember the widespread glowing coverage of Lordstown. After Biden signed his “Buy American” executive order, promising to replace the entire U.S. federal fleet with EVs, Lordstown’s stock shot up.

By the start of this year, Lordstown had manufactured 31 vehicles in total. Six had been sold to actual consumers. (Most of them would be recalled.) The stock was trading at barely a dollar. Tech-funding giant Foxconn was pulling its $170 million. And this week, the company filed for bankruptcy.

Without massive state help, EVs are a niche market for rich virtue-signalers. And, come to think of it, that’s sort of what they are now, even with the help. A recent University of California at Berkeley study found that 90% of tax credits for EVs go to people in the top income strata. Most EVs are bought by high earners who like the look and feel of a Tesla. And that’s fine. I don’t want to stop anyone from owning the car they prefer. I just don’t want to help pay for it.

Really, why would a middle-class family shun a perfectly good gas-powered car that can be fueled (most of the time) cheaply and driven virtually any distance, in any environment, and any time of the year? We don’t need lithium. We have the most efficient, affordable, portable, and useful form of energy. We have centuries’ worth of it waiting in the ground.

Climate alarmists might believe EVs are necessary to save the planet. That’s fine. Using their standard, however, a bike is an innovation. Even on their terms, the usefulness of EVs is highly debatable. Most of the energy that powers them is derived from fossil fuels. The manufacturing of an EV has a negligible positive benefit for the environment, if any.

And the fact is that if EVs were more efficient and saved us money, as enviros and politicians claim, consumers wouldn’t have to be compelled into using them and companies wouldn’t have to be bribed into producing them.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Arizona News: July 18, 2023 thumbnail

Arizona News: July 18, 2023

/in , /by

By The Editors

The Prickly Pear will provide current, linked articles about Arizona consistent with our Mission Statement to ‘inform, educate and advocate’. We are an Arizona based website and believe this information should be available to all of our statewide readers.

Jungle Primaries? Just Another Bad Idea Designed To Turn Arizona Into California

Maricopa County’s LD3 PCs Rightly Suspended By Unanimous Vote

Legislature forms committee looking into ASU free speech concerns

Arizona, We Have A Problem: The State Of S.T.E.M. Education

Peoria School Board Overlooks Evidence Of Trans Violence To Align With Biden Policy

Peoria School Board Members Advocate For Boys To Invade Girls’ Bathrooms

Horne Continues Fight To Protect Girl’s Sports In Court

Mitchell Leads Push Back Against Hobbs’ Abortion Executive Order

The Push For ‘Net Zero’ Isn’t Clean Or Green

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

House Republican Bill Would Keep Foreign Nationals From Voting In U.S. Federal Elections thumbnail

House Republican Bill Would Keep Foreign Nationals From Voting In U.S. Federal Elections

/in , , , , /by

By Shawn Fleetwood

Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., introduced legislation earlier this week ensuring that only eligible U.S. citizens are able to vote in federal elections.

Titled the “NO VOTE for Non-Citizens Act of 2023,” the proposed bill includes amendments to the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and 2002 Help America Vote Act that seek to clarify states’ authority in maintaining federal voter registration lists and establish that federal election funding cannot be “used to support States that permit non-citizens to cast ballots in any election.”

Under the NVRA, states are required to “ensur[e] the maintenance of an accurate and current voter registration roll for elections for Federal office.” The current version of the law, however, only refers to “eligible voters” and does not include a provision about citizenship requirements.

While the Constitution and federal law stipulate that only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections, several Democrat-led cities in states such as Maryland and California have adopted measures in recent years permitting the practice for their respective municipal elections. In October, for instance, Washington, D.C. passed legislation granting foreign nationals the ability to vote in the district’s local elections. House Republicans’ efforts to revoke the law have been blocked by Senate Democrats.

“Since the Constitution prohibits non-citizens from voting in Federal elections, such ineligible persons must not be permitted to be placed on Federal voter registration lists,” the NO VOTE for Non-Citizens Act reads.

In order to ensure noncitizens aren’t voting in federal elections, Griffith’s bill includes a provision requiring states that permit localities to allow noncitizen voting in their respective elections to place such non-citizens on a voter registration list “separate from the official list of eligible voters with respect to registrants who are citizens of the United States.” The measure further mandates “the ballot used for the casting of votes by a noncitizen in such State or local jurisdiction may only include the candidates for the elections for public office in the State or local jurisdiction for which the noncitizen is permitted to vote.”

While Congress does not possess the authority to manage state and local elections, it can control federal funding that is allocated to these jurisdictions for the purposes of election administration. Griffith’s bill seeks to utilize this authority by reducing any federal payments issued to a state or locality that permits noncitizen voting by 30 percent and prohibiting them from using funds for certain “election administration activities.”

“One of the rights and privileges granted in the U.S Constitution is an American citizen’s ability to vote in our country’s federal elections,” Griffith said in a statement. “If non-citizens are allowed to vote in our federal elections, it could invite foreign interference and dilute the voice of American citizens. The NO VOTE for Non-Citizens Act upholds Americans’ right to vote, preserving our great democracy.”

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Movie Review: The Sound of Freedom thumbnail

Movie Review: The Sound of Freedom

/in , , , , , /by

By Neland Nobel

From seemingly out of the blue, an independent film about child sex trafficking has eclipsed some heavyweight Hollywood productions for the summer box office draw. In actuality, we learn the film was produced some five years ago and it took all this time and struggle to get it to the big screen.  Why such a struggle?

Like many of you, we have heard about the film and the criticism that it was simply a front for the blatherings of Qu Anon conspiracy advocates.  But most of this is coming from talking heads on left-wing TV networks and we discounted much of what they said.

Besides, The Prickly Pear had run some important articles (here and here) about the film, so we decided to see it for ourselves.

There have also been anecdotal reports of “funny business” by some theatres to suppress viewership.  We had our own experience and can’t verify the experience in the video below.

We saw the show at a multiplex in Arrow Head Mall in West Phoenix.  As we attempted to purchase for a matinee show, we were shown a diagram of a full theatre with just two seats available, right up against the big screen in the extreme right-hand extreme corner.  We decided to take them knowing that a visit to the chiropractor would likely follow almost two hours of stressed necks.  After all, we were late getting to the facility and felt that was the penalty for tardiness.  But once we were in, we found at least a half dozen empty seats and moved to more comfortable seating.  Why would theatres do that?  Was this deliberate or just incompetence? Aren’t they dying to win back customers?

We were glad to find seating. Wow, what a movie!

Both my wife and I felt we could not recall ever seeing a movie as moving as this one.  It is extremely well-acted.  We marveled at where the producers found these child actors and actresses. Jim Caviezel is outstanding and believable.

This is no date night movie.  The theme is a dark one, and that is perhaps what is drawing the ire of the Left.  It suggests there are boundaries when it comes to sexual behavior and the children are off limits.  This happens to be a big topic right now in our society and the Left seems hell-bent on sexualizing children.  For what ends are debatable but the attempt is undeniable.

Some, of course, will not tolerate any “God Talk” in a movie, although they are quite happy to see lots of secular moralizing about “global warming”, racism, and gay rights.  But we found really no political content in this movie.

There is mention of God only twice I can recall.  One involves the statement that “God’s children are not for sale.”  One would have to be really jaded to object to that.  The movie does not do a lot of moralizing but the story itself carries the burden.

We are very hard-pressed to see why so many critics either ignore or criticize this movie.  You would think if there was any subject where a bipartisan consensus could be achieved, it would be in opposition to child sex slavery.

Conservatives need to support all the forms of new communication that help break the monopoly of the Left on our culture. See the film and support its producers.  Moreover, see this film because it is powerful and beautiful art that tells an important story and you are well justified to see it on those grounds alone.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Identity As Politics thumbnail

Identity As Politics

/in , , , /by

By Conlan Salgado

Identity politics is well acknowledged in conservative circles as one of the worst scourges of postmodernity. As its name suggests, there are two different aspects to this phenomenon: a theory of identity and then a theory of how identity relates to politics. The latter term is relatively easy to define: for everybody living after the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, politics means, very simply, “power dynamics”.

The classical idea that politics is a means of organizing a political community (polis) remains embedded within this newer, more disturbing definitiona but only insofar as that “organizing of the political community” is properly informed by the power dynamics existing among—and this is where identity politics comes in—different identity groups.

One result of this way of understanding politics is that the individual becomes unimportant except as a representative of some identity group. This thinking often motivates the policies overtaking the corporate world: diversity, equity, and inclusion hiring. When a white man comes in and applies for a position, he may, as an individual, be obviously qualified.He may be far and away the most qualified candidate who is seeking the position. But the white race overall is not qualified to hold such-and-such position because the white race already has an unfair distribution of power; a good hiring manager will therefore engage in politics (the process of distributing/redistributing power to change the dynamics) and gift the position to a candidate from a less privileged identity group.

The problem of defining identity is a little more difficult, although I’ve hinted at the fact that identity is understood not as an individual occurrence, but something which is formed at the level of the group. Perhaps as a corollary to this group-oriented understanding, there has emerged, over the past 6 or 7 decades, a strange identity-related phenomenon which I have chosen to call “the psychological synecdoche.”

Synecdoche, of course, means using a part to represent a whole, as in referring to ‘boots’ (boots on the ground) as ‘soldiers’. Synecdoche is integral to the understanding of symbolism, especially in literary theory. I’m using it in a slightly less conventional sense: what I mean by it here is this practice of choosing one aspect of yourself—say, your sexuality or your race—and attempting to create a comprehensive identity from it.

 One simply has to look to the group-identifying individual to confirm the point I’m making; after all, if one is gay, this concerns not only who one has sex with, but also how one is supposed to vote, one’s religious affiliation (obviously), which community organizations one belongs to and supports, what kind of flag one flies, etc. Another phenomenon, almost as strange as and far more perverse than the psychological synecdoche, is that of privatizing aspects of one’s identity which should be publicly expressed and publicizing aspects of one’s identity which ought to find a more private expression.

Take religion, more particularly Christianity, whose adherents have been told time and again beginning in the 1960s that their religious beliefs ought not to affect anyone outside the four walls of their own home. Certainly, a company publicly professing biblical beliefs or a traditional Christian ethic is nowadays completely off-limits.

This attitude ignores the fact that religion is by nature congregational and communal; sexuality, on the other hand, is not congregational. It is an intimate affair, or ought to be.  Sex takes place between two people. To parade through the streets screaming about sex, post on public forums detailing one’s sexual experiences, fly flags outside of embassies to show sympathy for certain sexual acts, deliberately and diabolically confuses what should be the private nature of all sexual acts.

To return to my original observation, that of the psychological synecdoche, it will inevitably lead to a very disordered understanding of the human person if one insists on marginalizing the full range of human experiences to prioritize merely the sexual experience, or racial experience. It will lead to even worse disorder if one tries to racialize or sexualize all experience, which is the identity politician’s alternative to the problem of marginalizing some experiences at the expense of others.

Identity is a very complex process. I would suggest it is one of both becoming and being.  It involves acts of congregation and community and also acts of intimacy. A well-ordered identity will incorporate the full range of human experiences; it will not marginalize the religious for the sexual, nor marginalize the civil for the racial, nor the ethical for the political. It will comprehend all six categories and numerous others as well. It will rebel against any notion that the inner life of the human being can be summed up in a few simple words, or a few silly slogans.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Gallup Poll Reveals Americans’ Plummeting Confidence in Public Schools thumbnail

Gallup Poll Reveals Americans’ Plummeting Confidence in Public Schools

/in , , , , , /by

By Kerry McDonald

Americans have soured on public schools, but there are alternatives.

Americans have soured on public schools. That’s the takeaway from Gallup polling results released earlier this month showing that Americans’ confidence in public schools is at a low point, with only 26 percent of respondents indicating a “Great deal/Fair amount” of confidence in that institution.

Indeed, public schools join three other institutions that are also at or tied with their record lows, including the police, large technology companies, and big business. Along with the presidency, public schools are now among the most politically polarizing institutions in the US.

On a positive note, confidence in small businesses remained high, topping the list of institutions tracked annually by Gallup. It’s not surprising, then, that more parents are turning away from public schooling and choosing smaller, low-cost private schools and related out-of-system learning models, like homeschooling.

It’s also not surprising that there is growing support among Americans for school choice policies that enable education funding to follow students instead of going to school systems. 2023 has become a record year for school choice, with several states now joining Arizona in passing universal education choice legislation for all K-12 students.

Even in states without robust school choice policies, like where I am in Massachusetts, parents are continuing to choose education options beyond their assigned district schools. This exodus may have accelerated during the school closures of 2020, but it’s hardly disappearing. Demand for alternatives to public schools remains high, and education entrepreneurs are rising to meet that demand throughout the US.

“Families are in search of programs that can deliver personalized, high-quality instruction to their children,” said Ada Salie, who launched a learning center in Massachusetts in 2021 and is opening two additional locations across the state this fall. “As alternative education programs, we can pivot quickly in response to the needs of our students, and allow them to learn in the ways that serve them best.”

Salie’s program, Life Rediscovered, offers full- and part-time programming for homeschoolers, including many who have recently opted out of public schooling. Her program offers a blend of academic support, student-led projects, abundant time outside, and a cohesive, mixed-age community of learners and hired educators. This model is attractive to many families, with Salie’s three locations now at or near capacity.

Salie credits much of her expansion success to grants she has received from the VELA Education Fund, a national, philanthropic non-profit organization that supports entrepreneurial parents and teachers who are building unconventional, out-of-system learning models. Since launching publicly in 2019, VELA has issued grants to more than 2,200 everyday entrepreneurs, totaling more than $26 million. “We would not have had the confidence to go ahead with opening more sites without funding from VELA,” said Salie.

With back-to-school season just around the corner, parents don’t need to be tied to a school assignment that doesn’t meet their expectations. There is a growing number of inexpensive private schools and alternative education models all over the US, representing a wide variety of educational philosophies and approaches. I recently spotlighted 35 of them across five cities, from the busy streets of New York to the quiet crossroads of Grants Pass, Oregon.

Confidence in public schools may be fading at least in part due to their politically polarizing characteristics that inevitably create a battle of wills among diverse constituents with different preferences and worldviews. A decentralized education ecosystem, by contrast, allows families to choose what is best for their children without forcing their preferences upon others.

As faith in large, centralized institutions wanes, look to the entrepreneurs and small business owners who are creating what people want, in education and elsewhere, while reducing polarization and social strife.

*****

This article was published by FEE, The Foundation for Economic Education, and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Is There Any Such Thing as Legislation Anymore? thumbnail

Is There Any Such Thing as Legislation Anymore?

/in , , , , /by

By Ryan M. Yonk and Laura Arce

The attention given to the recent decision in Biden v. Nebraska rests fundamentally on political differences that have become increasingly stark, and that will no doubt continue to be the source of much disagreement. At its core, the question asked is primarily one of the wisdom of a policy decision made by a President, grafted onto a congressional statute granting him emergency powers, and then decided by the Court on what would ordinarily be viewed through the lens of narrow administrative law. The political stakes are high, and as a result, the core policy issue that underlies the political debate is left unresolved by the Court’s decision.

On June 30th the Supreme Court of the United States ruled against the Secretary of Education´s use of the  Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to forgive student loan debts of 430 Billion Dollars on the basis that the Secretary of Education does not have the authority to enact this plan. While the ruling focuses on the Secretary’s authority, the plan itself emerged from a series of political promises made first by Candidate Biden, and later by President Biden to forgive student debt. With congressional opposition to a legislative approach clear, the Administration decided to work through the Department of Education to use the HEROES Act to accomplish administratively what they had been unable to do legislatively. 

The plan, as laid out by the Department of Education and endorsed by President Biden, would have given up to $20,000 in debt forgiveness to students. Most borrowers would qualify for $10,000 in forgiveness as long as they were making less than $125k a year, or less than $250k in annual household income in 2020 or 2021. Those who received Pell Grants could qualify for another $10,000 of forgiveness. This plan would have completely eliminated the debts of 20 million borrowers and lowered the median amount owed by another 23 million from $29,400 to $13,600.

In response to this administrative action, six states (Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Carolina) challenged the plan, claiming the Secretary was exceeding his statutory authority. Last week’s decision held that “…the HEROES Act provides no authorization for the Secretary’s plan when examined using the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation–let alone ‘clear congressional authorization’ for such a program.”

The Secretary argued that by using the HEROES Act and Title IV of the Education Act, the Department of Education could cancel student debt in order to assure that its recipients are not placed “in a worse position financially because of the national emergency.” The emergency they reference is the COVID-19 pandemic. To bolster this argument, the Secretary claimed that because the Act allows him to “waive or modify” regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs, those abilities could be extended to fully cancel student loan debt. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, dismissed this notion observing “The Secretary’s plan has “modified” the cited provisions only in the same sense that “the French Revolution ‘modified’ the status of the French nobility”—it has abolished them and supplanted them with a new regime entirely. “With a less rhetorical flourish, the majority plainly states “It does not allow him to rewrite the statute completely”

The decision and the argument surrounding it have been derided by those who support action on student loan forgiveness as political activism. In one sense they are right. The question emerged primarily from the political reality that meant loan forgiveness was legislatively impossible. The majority cites convincing precedent that requires Congress to enact major changes like those the Secretary unilaterally proposed. Instead, they push the responsibility back to the legislative branch to enact legislation that explicitly gives the department such power.  

The dissent adopts a wide reading of the authority granted by the HEROES Act. They, like the majority, rightly point to congressional action as the necessary source of the power in question, and regardless of the wisdom of the plan, Congress has given that power to the Secretary in order to alleviate the effects of a national emergency.

The Court is remarkably consistent in its view that at its core, congressional authorization is necessary, but diverges widely on the meaning of the statute, and how far undelineated grants of authority range. That the case is one with clear political undertones is clear, but those undertones were present from the day it became clear executive fiat would supplant legislative action, and not on the day the Court issued its ruling.

*****

This article was published by AIER, The American Institute for Economic Research, and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Rules For Dealing With Crisis thumbnail

Rules For Dealing With Crisis

/in , , , /by

By Ken Veit

Editors’ Note: Ken Veit is a man of immense experience. A trained actuary, he managed an international firm for many years as well as a successful local business.  He has worked and traveled extensively abroad and is one of the most well-read people we have ever met. In a world that could use some wisdom, Ken can help.

Herewith are “Ken’s Rules” which I have accumulated over the years. There are 3 sets. One has to do with handling crises and which we all experience. A second set covers doing business internationally, an area where my expertise was hard-earned through many faux pas. The final section covers relationships with women, an area of great mystery for most men, including myself.

First Set: HANDLING CRISIS

Don’t panic.

Don’t lie, especially not to yourself. The situation is what it is. Deal with it.

Stop the bleeding. (Sometimes expressed as, “When you are in a deep hole, stop digging.”)

Focus on fixing, not blaming. If the crisis is your fault, don’t waste time beating yourself up.

Don’t try to shift blame. The truth usually comes out in the end.

Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

Don’t waste time bewailing your bad luck. It happens to everyone from time to time. This is just one of those times for you.

Focus on the big problem and ignore things that are unimportant but give a false sense of comfort when you deal with them.

Face courageously what you will do if everything happens that you dread most.

Do not hesitate to ask for help from anyone. Don’t expect a hero to appear or try to be one yourself.

Be aware of who might cheer if your crisis becomes a disaster.

Second Set: RULES FOR DOING BUSINESS INTERNATIONALLY

The Golden Rule is global in scope.

Assume nothing. Things that are unacceptable or illegal at home may be OK elsewhere, and vice versa.

Trust but verify (Ronald Reagan). That cuts both ways. Foreigners may need to feel they can trust you before they offer friendship. American informality and seeming instant friendship can confuse them.

Respect local cultures. Try the local food, even if the thought turns your stomach. It is OK to not like it, but unless you show respect, you will never be accepted. You haven’t lived until you have tried swallowing a sheep’s eyeballs.

Avoid arrogance. No one likes being made to feel inferior. As American culture has displayed more unattractive features in recent years, it is more and more inappropriate to act as though foreigners are “natives” or less sophisticated. In fact, for all our technological brilliance, the U.S. is falling behind much of the world in its cultural superiority.

Talk less; listen more. You will be surprised at how much you must learn.

Humor makes friends. Every culture loves to laugh, but be careful, because humor varies widely from one place to another. Laugh with, not at.

All peoples need a sense of belonging. Be inclusive, not superior. Foreigners may be as uncertain about you as you are of them.

Identify a reliable local guide who can tell you when you are making a fool of yourself. This is harder than you think, both for you and for them.

Learn to say “Please”, “Thank you”, and “Sorry” in the local language, and pronounce them correctly.

Third Set: RULES FOR MAINTAINING GOOD RELATIONS WITH WOMEN (Things to remember)

They always want options before deciding.

They don’t always ask for what they want. They expect you to know.

They are more likely to respect rules than men (who typically seek ways around rules).

They are amazingly able to talk and listen simultaneously, a skill most men lack.

They prefer men just listening to their complaints with sympathy, rather than necessarily trying to fix them.

They notice little things that most men are oblivious to or simply ignore. When a wife says, “Oh! There is no cap on the toothpaste again”, a man can safely interpret this as the filing of a domestic grievance.

In an argument, logic alone may not move them unless their feelings are also convinced.

They generally are more loyal than men and probably work harder than their male counterparts, perhaps because they feel they are still on probation in a man’s world. Anything a male boss can do to dispel such apprehensions with feelings of security will yield a big dividend.

They generally enjoy nurturing more than men, and they are more aware of the level of harmony (or disharmony) in a group. They appreciate that skill being acknowledged.

They are formidable enemies. “Hell hath no fury…” does not just operate in sexual breakups.

They find humor in a man sexier than physical attractiveness. Walt Disney explained this in the cartoon character Jessica Rabbit.

They resent being treated as somehow lesser than men, as hothouse flowers needing protection, or as potential bedmates.

I must caveat the last set of observations as being those of an old man from an era that is now past. It may well be that women today are as ambitious, arrogant, competitive, competent, focused, grasping, intimidating, inspirational, mendacious, objective, obnoxious, realistic, risk-seeking, and scheming as any man. I can only speak of females as I have experienced them. I confess to appreciating the sharper and more worldly women of today but regret that it has often come at the cost of a reduction in their softer side. As women like to nurture their men, so men like to feel they are protecting their women.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Do Not Let China Attack America from America thumbnail

Do Not Let China Attack America from America

/in , , , , , /by

By Gordon Chang

It is way past time to end the ability of the Chinese regime to conduct political warfare against the United States from American soil. America’s defense begins with closing down the America ChangLe Association.

On April 17, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the arrests that day of two individuals for “conspiring to act as agents” of the People’s Republic of China and obstructing justice. The pair — “Harry” Lu Jianwang and Chen Jinping — had “worked together to establish the first overseas police station in the United States” for the Fuzhou branch of China’s Ministry of Public Security.

The branch was a “clandestine police station” operated under the cover of the America ChangLe Association in Manhattan’s Chinatown. The facility that closed last fall, after an FBI raid, had been operated by the United Front Work Department of the Communist Party of China.

China’s actions were outrageous — but Americans should be asking why did the Chinese regime think it could, without permission, establish a police station on American soil?

The answer is: American presidents for decades have known that China’s diplomats and agents were violating American sovereignty and did either nothing or virtually nothing to stop these activities. Therefore, China’s Communists naturally thought they could get away with even more blatant conduct.

It is good that the FBI closed down the Chinatown police station, but as Radio Free Asia reports, that station was “a mere sliver of Beijing’s U.S. harassment push.”

For one thing, the United Front Work Department, one of the regime’s “magic weapons” — operates “Overseas Chinese Service Centers” in other cities. The Daily Caller News Foundation reports that these OCSCs, as they are known, are located in San Francisco, Houston, Omaha, St. Paul, Salt Lake City, St. Louis, and Charlotte. The New York Post believes there are other Chinese police stations in New York and Los Angeles.

The United Front Work Department, the Party’s organ to interface with foreign organizations and individuals, often functions as an intelligence service, especially when it operates with the intelligence operations of the People’s Liberation Army, another Party organ, and the Chinese central government. The closed New York police station was used as a base targeting those legally in the United States.

Americans may think they are at peace, but the Communist Party believes it is locked in an existential struggle with America. People’s Daily, speaking for the Party, declared a “people’s war” on the United States in May 2019. The Chinese regime has been conducting “unrestricted warfare” against America for decades.

“Communist China’s primary means of defeating America is political warfare,” Kerry Gershaneck, a NATO fellow for Hybrid Threats, told Gatestone. “While it is fair to say that the CCP prefers to win this war without fighting, it is more accurate to say that the CCP intends to win without us fighting back. Through political warfare, the CCP disarms us intellectually and psychologically as it co-opts, corrupts, and ultimately controls key American elites, particularly political and foreign policy decision makers.”

The Communist Party’s political warfare campaign is comprehensive and effective. Beijing has almost certainly purchased most of the Biden family. In March, a spokesperson for Hunter Biden’s legal team admitted that Hunter had received “good faith seed funds” from an energy company in China. That was essentially an admission of bribery because, in the absence of corruption, no Chinese business in these circumstances would pay seed money.

The Chinese certainly think Biden has been purchased. In November 2020, Renmin University’s Di Dongsheng gave a lecture publicized widely inside China. Di claimed that China, with Biden in the Oval Office, would control outcomes at the highest levels in Washington. He argued that China could make offers that could not be refused and that every American could be bought with cash.

Di got his biggest laugh when he mentioned two words: “Hunter Biden.”

In addition to the Bidens, China has purchased hundreds — if not thousands — of politicians, academics, businesspeople and law enforcement officials at the federal, state, and municipal levels.

How do we know this? China’s Ministry of State Security first contacted Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Ca.) not when he was serving on the House Intelligence Committee — where he would be of great value to Beijing — but when he was on the city council of Dublin City, California. Swalwell could not have been the only aspiring politician that Beijing had been grooming then.

Swalwell was enticed by the sweet Christine Fang, now known to be a Ministry of State Security agent. “The Chinese Communist Party uses three color-coded ‘political-interference tactics’ to gain influence over American citizens at home as well as those who naively travel to China,” Charles Burton of the Ottawa-based Macdonald-Laurier Institute tells this publication. “Blue refers to sophisticated cyberattacks on target computers, smartphones, and hotel rooms for possible blackmail. Gold refers to bribes, while yellow means ‘honey pots,’ sexual seduction.”

As Burton, a former Canadian diplomat in Beijing, points out, these color-coded tactics “are part of a sophisticated engagement coordinated by the agents of the Communist Party’s massive United Front Work Department working under diplomatic cover at China’s embassies and consulates.”

China’s agents work out of, among other places, Beijing’s four consulates and large Washington, D.C. embassy as well as nine or so police stations, many state banks and enterprises, Confucius Institutes and Confucius Classrooms, and organizations such as the Chinese Students and Scholars Association. China’s regime, over the course of decades, has penetrated just about every organization of influence in the United States.

The United States faces a challenge it is now underestimating. As Gershaneck, also author of Political Warfare: Strategies for Combating China’s Plan to ‘Win Without Fighting, warns, “Today, with its modern technology and massive political, military, and economic power, the political warfare of the People’s Republic of China presents a totalitarian challenge unprecedented in human history.”

What should the United States do in the face of such a challenge? The regime uses every point of contact to destroy America, so America needs to sever every point of contact with the regime.

Americans cannot afford to leave any Communist Party member or any Chinese saboteur, agent, official, banker, or corporate officer in America. There should be no Chinese consulates in the U.S., and the embassy staff of hundreds should be cut down to the ambassador, his personal staff, and his family.

Extreme? By no means. Why should we ever allow China to attack America from America?

*****

This article was published by the Gatestone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Weekend Read: ORDER UPHELD: Judge Blocks Biden Admin’s ‘Orwellian’ Collusion With Big Tech to Suppress Free Speech thumbnail

Weekend Read: ORDER UPHELD: Judge Blocks Biden Admin’s ‘Orwellian’ Collusion With Big Tech to Suppress Free Speech

/in , , , , /by

By Tyler O’Neil

UPDATE July 11, 2023

Judge Terry Doughty in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on Monday [7/10] rejected the Biden administration’s motion for a stay of his historic July 4 preliminary injunction preventing the administration from pressuring Big Tech to censor Americans.

Two days after Doughty issued the injunction, the Biden administration filed a motion begging for relief, arguing that “they face irreparable harm with each day the injunction remains in effect.” The administration claimed that “the injunction’s broad scope and ambiguous terms may be read to prevent the [administration] from engaging in a vast range of lawful and responsible conduct.”

Doughty ruled, however, that the preliminary injunction is already narrowly-tailored. It “only prohibits what [the administration’s agencies] have no right to do—urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of any content containing protected free speech on social-media platforms.”

He denied the motion for a stay because the federal government’s arguments against the injunction are already addressed in the injunction itself, which explicitly allows government agencies to speak on social media, to contact Big Tech companies for criminal investigations, and to otherwise lawfully engage with them.

The federal government is still likely to appeal this decision to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Denial-of-Biden-Big-Tech-stayDownload

ORIGINAL July 5, 2023

On the Fourth of July, a federal judge condemned the Biden administration’s collusion with Big Tech companies to suppress Americans’ free speech as “similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’” and issued a historic order temporarily blocking the federal government from pressuring tech companies to stifle speech.

“It is fitting that the judge granted a first-of-its-kind injunction on the Fourth of July because that day paved the way for our country to adopt the First Amendment,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, told The Daily Signal in a statement Wednesday. “We had to fight the Revolutionary War in part because King George tried to stamp out political dissent. Now, the Biden administration is trying to censor speech he disagrees with. Fortunately, and thanks to the brave Founders on the Fourth of July, we now have the First Amendment to push back against the Biden administration’s censorship regime.”

“It could not be more perfect timing,” Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murrill, a Republican, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview Wednesday. “I can’t ever recall such a sprawling government enterprise to censor American speech being unraveled in this manner.”

Bailey and Murrill are leading the case Missouri v. Biden, and they celebrated Doughty’s ruling in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on Tuesday.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’” Doughty wrote. His ruling included a preliminary injunction, barring federal officials from colluding with Big Tech companies to suppress free speech.

Gene Hamilton, vice president of America First Legal, which represents two plaintiffs in the case against the Biden administration, told The Daily Signal he did not consider it a “coincidence” that Doughty issued the order on July Fourth.

“It’s a monumental decision for the American people—a great day for all Americans,” Hamilton said in a phone interview Wednesday. “It was a great, great Fourth of July.”

“It was only appropriate for this decision to be rendered on Independence Day,” he added. “It’s a reaffirmation of our enduring principles on which our country was founded.”

“The Biden administration has made combating ‘mis-,’ ‘dis-,’ and ‘malinformation’ a high priority,” Hamilton added. “They appear to view it as a systemic threat to the existence of democracy when nothing could be further from the truth. The solution to ‘mis-’ and ‘disinformation’ and false information is simply the truth and more information, and letting people draw their own conclusions.”

The lawyer also said he had never heard of another judge issuing an injunction to prevent the federal government from directing Big Tech to suppress speech online.

Doughty’s ruling notes that the plaintiffs in the case—Missouri and Louisiana, represented by Bailey and Murrill; doctors who spoke out against the COVID-19 mandates, such as Martin Kulldorff, Jayanta Bhattacharya, and Aaron Kheriaty; Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft; and anti-lockdown advocate and Health Freedom Louisiana Co-Director Jill Hines—allege that the Biden administration “suppressed conservative-leaning free speech” on the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 presidential election; on COVID-19 issues, including its origin, masks, lockdowns, and vaccines; on election integrity in the 2020 presidential election; on the security of voting by mail; on the economy; and on President Joe Biden himself.

Doughty’s injunction names various federal agencies—including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (the agency Dr. Anthony Fauci formerly directed), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the State Department—and officials, including HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.

It forbids those people and agencies from “meeting with social media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms”; from flagging posts for removal or suppression; from encouraging censorship; and from contacting Big Tech companies via email, phone, or letters for such purposes.

It also specifically bars collaboration with third-party organizations aiming at urging social media companies to suppress forms of speech. It also bars the Biden administration from notifying Big Tech firms to “be on the lookout” for posts containing protected free speech.

The injunction does not restrict government agencies from all collaboration with Big Tech companies, however. It does not prohibit agencies from flagging posts involving criminal activity, or from notifying them of national security threats, malicious cyber activity, or criminal efforts to suppress voting or influence elections. It also expressly allows the administration to post “permissible public government speech” online.

Hamilton, the America First Legal attorney whose firm represents Hoft and Hines, argued that the injunction’s carve-outs for specific government interaction with Big Tech firms would return the relationship to the status quo before the Biden administration.

“There’s no First Amendment right to engage in criminal conduct,” he noted. “It’s still totally fine for the government to point out to a social media company, ‘It turns out you have some child porn from this user,’ or that there’s a drug trafficker using your platform to communicate.”

“Those are natural functions of government,” Hamilton explained. “Most folks would understand this is the role that the government used to play with social media companies online” before the Biden administration weaponized it.

The judge’s order does not represent a complete win for the defendants, however. It denies plaintiffs a “class determination,” which would have included far more people in the lawsuit.

“It was unfortunate that he didn’t certify a class,” Murrill, the solicitor general of Louisiana, told The Daily Signal. “I think that part of the ruling is disappointing.”

Both Hamilton and Murrill predicted that the Biden administration will file a motion to “stay” the injunction, likely followed by an appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Murrill also condemned the censorship “enterprise” the Biden administration set up. She likened it to the government’s targeted silencing of people loosely associated with the Communist Party under Sen. Joe McCarthy, R-Wis., in the 1950s.

“Here, you basically see a similar enterprise being set up, targeting predominantly conservative speech, but the enterprise doesn’t know political boundaries,” she warned. “Once the structure’s in place, the structure can be weaponized by anybody in power.”

“It turns the Constitution on its head,” Murrill declared. “It flagrantly violates the First Amendment rights of everyone in this country.” She further noted that when Americans challenge the Biden administration on this, “their answer is not to pull back on violating people’s rights; it’s to defend the enterprise. It’s to double down on speech as dangerous.”

The solicitor general cited Jen Easterly, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, who called it “really, really dangerous if people get to pick their own facts.”

“So, in her view, government needs to pick those facts for us,” Murrill said. “It ought to shock everyone’s conscience that they’re so willing to unapologetically violate our constitutional rights and then turn around and tell us it’s good for us, that they know better.”

She emphasized that the federal government circumvented “that pesky First Amendment” by making Big Tech companies “agents of the government.”

The White House did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment by publication time.

Bhattacharya, the doctor who opposed COVID-19 lockdowns and led the Great Barrington Declaration, found himself on a Twitter Trends blacklist for his medical guidance on combating the pandemic. As evidence of government collusion with Twitter came out in the Twitter Files, Bhattacharya wrote, “I learned in a very concrete and painful way the effects of Washington and Silicon Valley working together to marginalize unpopular ideas and people to create an illusion of consensus.”

In January, as part of this lawsuit, Bailey, the Missouri attorney general, unearthed documents in which Facebook told the White House that it suppressed “often-true content” that might discourage Americans from taking COVID-19 vaccines.

On the 2020 election, Doughty wrote that Easterly’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the third-party Election Integrity Partnership are “completely intertwined.” The Election Integrity Partnership reported “misinformation” to social media platforms, helping the federal government pressure Big Tech to silence speech.

*****

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Arizona News: July 15, 2023 thumbnail

Arizona News: July 15, 2023

/in , /by

By The Editors

The Prickly Pear will provide current, linked articles about Arizona consistent with our Mission Statement to ‘inform, educate and advocate’. We are an Arizona based website and believe this information should be available to all of our statewide readers.

Republican Legislative Leaders Fight To Prohibit Gender Reassignment Surgery For Minors

Arizona Senate Republican Caucus Highlights Six Issues In Latest Update

Affirmative Action Ruling Stirs Reaction From Arizona Politicos

ASU Deserves An ‘F’ For Its Failure To Uphold Free Speech

New Poll Shows School Choice Support Continues To Grow

Arizona, We Have A Problem: The State Of S.T.E.M. Education

Tale of two states’ policies: Comparing Arizona and Colorado economies in recent years

Hottest Day Ever? Nope, Just Fake News

Arizona business leaders warn of ‘unattainable’ federal air quality proposals

Border Patrol agents: June southwest border apprehension data is a ‘shell game’

The Overlooked Real Life Impacts To Victims Of Fleeing Border Smugglers

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

The Homeless Crisis Is Destroying The Once-Great Cities Of The West Coast

/in , , , /by

By Suzanne Downing

In 2019, the Seattle news channel KOMO produced “Seattle is Dying,” a documentary by Eric Johnson that has been seen by more than 15 million people on YouTube.

The homeless industrial complex and liberal apologists lost their minds, and said the production was irresponsible and inaccurate “propaganda.”

“‘Seattle is Dying’ is something else. It’s propaganda stuffed with overblown and florid rhetoric designed to propose simple answers to complex problems while simultaneously generating fear and pointing fingers,” wrote one liberal-leaning columnist out of Oregon.

It wasn’t, however. “Seattle is Dying” was prophetic, not just for Seattle, but for cities up and down the West Coast.

Once known as the Emerald City, Washington’s biggest city was, when the documentary was made in 2019 and is today facing a crisis of confidence, as rising crime and a deteriorating quality of life leave residents frustrated and contemplating the exits.

Some are, in fact, leaving. King County, home to Seattle, saw a net domestic outmigration of -16,035 in 2022, on top of outmigration of net -37,655 in 2021.

Eric Johnson didn’t make up the terrible conditions in the city; he simply pulled back the curtain and called it like he saw it.

Now, a recent poll conducted by Suffolk University for the Seattle Times shows that fully one-third of Seattle residents are considering abandoning the community they once loved. The downtown streets are overrun with lawless vagrants and addicts, leading to a reversal in the city’s reputation as a thriving metropolis.

“Freattle,” as it’s become known by some, is a place where deadbeats and druggies can exploit the city’s generosity.

Yet, the city is not as liberal as many might think. Pew Research Center report reveals that 41 percent of Seattleites lean Republican, while 42 percent lean Democrat, and 17 percent remain undecided. Despite the political diversity, the people elect liberal, and even socialist officials. Between public policy and the homeless industrial complex, families are being driven away. The Seattle Times poll shows that over 50% of the Republicans polled in King County are contemplating leaving.

Among those who are looking for another community than Seattle, 34 percent cite increasing crime as the primary reason. It doesn’t help that Gov. Jay Inslee and the liberal legislature have also created a statewide environment that is unfriendly to families and accommodating to petty thieves, drug pushers, and hardened felons.

The situation in Seattle is also found Portland, Ore. The most recent U.S. Census reveals that after 15 years of continuous growth, Portland’s population started to decline as people left during the pandemic and working families never came back.

Further down the coast, the Bay Area has seen population decline across all its counties. Some attribute this decline to the trend of those in the Bay Area choosing not to have children, coupled with insufficient in-migration.

The shrinkage in the Bay Area gained momentum in 2020, partially due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which allowed people to work remotely. With the freedom to choose, many decided to leave for places like Bend, Ore., where the population has been growing at an annual rate of 2.54 percent. Meanwhile, the Bay Area lost 93,000 residents between April 2020 and January 2021.

In 2022, Los Angeles County experienced the largest population decline in the entire state of California, with a decrease of 90,704 residents, continuing its downward trajectory.

Between 2021 and 2022, the county shedded 271,098 residents. That’s equivalent to the population of Anchorage, Alaska.

Even red-state Alaska’s largest city, Anchorage, is not immune to the exodus from liberal-run cities.

Anchorage’s population fell below 290,000 during the last U.S. Census, as people who can afford to move are seeking refuge in the conservative Mat-Su Valley.

While z, further alienating middle-class families, the Mat-Su Valley offers more abundant housing options, fewer burdensome housing regulations, superior schools, and a sense of safety.

People vote in the politicians who promulgate the policies. And when those policies turn out to make communities into dystopian nightmares, people vote with their feet. Sometimes, those fleeing the ruins end up packing up their liberal leanings and bringing them along, without realizing they’ve created the very problems they are leaving.

The common thread in these dying cities is the liberal value of making life “painless.” The compassionate Left believes that legalizing painkillers makes life more painless. That’s why the Left also pushes universal basic income, universal health care, and SNAP benefits.

Pain has always been a warning signal and the right to a pain-free life allows people to escape the feedback on their behaviors. Rather than allowing people to get the warning signals to stop whatever it is they are doing, cities are making entire industries that are codependent on enabling and growing bad behaviors.

In 2019, one brave reporter – KOMO’s Eric Johnson – was right all along. Even though he was pilloried by many of the news pundits and the defenders of big government, Seattle is still dying. And so are Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Anchorage.

*****

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

Making Ice Cream Out Of History thumbnail

Making Ice Cream Out Of History

/in , , , /by

By Neland Nobel

Over the 4th of July weekend, you likely became aware of the political statements from Ben and Jerry’s, the ice cream maker owned by the international conglomerate, Unilever.

Exactly why we should believe the utterings of a company that clogs people’s veins with fat and inflames their system with sugar, is not the point.  The Howard Zinn view of America is what has been taught in our schools and they are simply parroting the lines they have learned.

In their statement, they said in essence that we should not be celebrating the Founding of our country because it was based on “stolen” land.  We had taken the land from Native Americans, and therefore, the moral basis for the country is despicable, and by extension, America is not worth celebrating or defending.

They have made similar claims about “stolen land” in Canada and Israel.

They went on to suggest that “the land” should be returned, starting with Mount Rushmore.  However, Ben and Jerry’s did not announce they were returning the land to Native Americans in Vermont upon which their factory is situated.  Their righteous claims about “justice” do not apply to themselves.

Their hypocrisy is not as sweet as their ice cream, so it would seem.

This argument that the nation was “stolen”, coupled with the practice of slavery, are the two cudgels that the Progressive Left has used for years to bash America.

As is typical in these kinds of verbal assaults, the accusation is easy to make but unraveling the complexity of history necessary to refute it is much more complicated and nuanced.  Because of time constraints, we will cite the case of Mt. Rushmore (The Black Hills), since in doing so, the argument can be extended to many other cases. After all, Ben and Jerry used it as their example and so their wise counsel requires us to do the same.

The underlying assumption is that the Sioux claimed the land and that their “claim” is “morally valid” and that of the US is not.

Unless land is completely vacant, historically it has always been “occupied” by someone, and history is replete with land being taken by other people either through war or cultural absorption.  Nothing really unique in this case, just read the Bible or a good history.  It is pretty much the story of mankind. In fact, the Sioux were only the most recent owners since they took the land from other tribes.

What archeologists know about ancient Americans is changing constantly as new research is being done.  However, most think that around 1500 AD (that is very recent since Columbus came in 1492), the Black Hills were peopled by the Arikara, who were replaced in order by the Cheyanne, Crow, and Arapahoe.  Who “owned” it before the Arikara? So, the Black Hills were “owned” previously by a variety of tribes, known and unknown,  who took it by force from other tribes.  Therefore, if we are going to return the land, maybe the Sioux should vacate the whole area and go back to Canada from whence most of them came.

If the Sioux kills off another tribe and takes their land, it becomes the “holy land of their fathers”, but if Europeans do the same to the Sioux as they did to others, it is the gravest of sins.  Why is that?

What moral principle at work here is that if whites act just as the Red Man did, they are to be judged as horrific while the Sioux get a moral pass.  Do we think less of the Sioux because they took the land from the Arapahoe?  No, in fact, Ben and Jerry have declared the Sioux the one and true owner.  Under what principle of law and morality is that declared?

And while we are on the subject of moral law, aren’t progressives the very ones that tell us there are no moral truths and all ethics are situational?  It is kind of hard to be righteous when everyone is free to make up their own morality.

Ben and Jerry have been long-time Marxist advocates for a variety of causes and its Jewish founders have been openly hostile to the state of Israel.  Apparently, they like neither America nor their own religious/ethnic group. They like socialism.  That is their religion and with whom they identify. But a core tenet of Marxism is hostility to private property.  All land should be held in common, right?  Stealing as a concept requires that one take private property from someone else.  But owning private property is wrong in the first place, according to socialists.  One could argue then, that the Sioux were totally wrong to resist encroachment on their lands since private property should not exist. The invading settlers were simply getting their due.

You can see this Marxist impulse at work today in California, where stealing from a Walgreens is protected up to almost a thousand dollars a day, or homeless can squat and poop in front of your restaurant, or they can take over city blocks of Central Phoenix. The land you see, is not really owned.  Sqatters, vagrants, or whatever have “rights” to use the property or take property because they “need it.”

These Marxist fumes can be detected in our lack of control of our own borders.  The US has no right to sovereign land and thus should not resist the millions of illegal migrants that want to live here.  Borders should be “open” as the concept of property and nationhood are immoral.  It is funny that progressives don’t apply this principle to the white settlers who were “migrants” coming from Europe.

They “needed” the Black Hills so no further justification is required.

Why are those crossing our Southern border considered “refugees” and have a right to be here,  but those Irishmen fleeing British oppression are considered “invaders.”

Moreover,  if land cannot be rightfully owned, how can white settlers take anything from “Native Americans.”

While we are at it, the underlying assumption is that there is such a thing as “Native Americans” can be challenged.

Readers may wish to look back at a book review we did some time ago on Kennewick Man.  In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that what we call “Native Americans” arrived rather late from Asia to these shores and that they killed off or absorbed other peoples who were already here.  And they took their land.

If you want more detail, below is an interesting video on the subject.  Of course, scholars are arguing about this subject right now and DNA technology is getting better and better.  We know quite a number of people who have done the 23 and Me DNA tests and are quite surprised by how complex human interaction can be.  As this is being applied more generally to the history of migration, there are some surprising findings.

Further, there is evidence of a “great dying” that occurred in North America well before the Europeans made these shores.  One of the reasons “Native Americans” lost out to the invaders is there were so few of them relatively speaking, perhaps little more than 4 Million in the entire confines of the present lower 48 states.  In fact, a good portion of this country was not really occupied.

In other instances, the land was purchased.  In research we did for a recent article on the origins of the French and Indian War, which began near present-day Uniontown, Pennsylvania, we learned that Uniontown was founded on July 4, 1776, by a fellow named Beeson on land purchased from the Indians.

Making it even more complicated, both Britain and France claimed the same area, something that would be settled by the Seven Years’ War.

The point is not all land was seized by conquest.  We all know the story about the purchase of Manhattan Island, right?  There are multiple instances where land was purchased or transferred by treaty.

Not a legitimate purchase you say?  Are you suggesting the Natives were too stupid to make a deal and they had no sense of what was valuable to them?  If it was a voluntary transaction, is it not culturally racist to assume only one side knew what they were doing, i.e., the white people?  Were some Indians swindled? Yes.  Did Indians also swindle settlers? Yes.

As you can see, the story is extremely complicated and not the cartoon-like depictions coming from Ben and Jerry, or their mentor, Howard Zinn.

In all of this complex story, are we suggesting that Native people were always treated to the best of our legal and moral impulses?  No, we made mistakes, the same ones made by the “natives” themselves.  And it should be added, American Indians have made their share of mistakes and to this day, some are hesitant to fully participate in America.

America is an ideal as well as a hunk of land, and we all are always struggling to live up to founding principles.  However, most critics of America despise the founding principles themselves more than the failure to achieve them. 

We asked earlier a rhetorical question: what is the moral and legal standard being used by Ben and Jerry?  It is confusing because they treat indigenous people taking lands from other tribes with apparently a completely different standard than white migrants or the US government.  They believe “property” has been stolen, but don’t really believe in private property.  We won’t even get granular with the idea that property must be “used and occupied” for agriculture for a valid claim.  That was an English idea, in particular, not embraced by indigenous people and those differences in the concept of ownership caused great confusion and terrible disputes when the two civilizations collided.  Besides vast swaths of land were not occupied under agriculture but simply roamed over by occasional hunters.

In short, the story of land ownership and transfers in America is incredibly complicated.

If there is a consistent principle being applied by Ben and Jerry it is to say anything that makes America look bad.  Emphasize all the flaws, ignore the success, and above all, distort history as much as possible to score political points.  That is what all this is really about.

They are free to say what they want, and we are free to disagree. Further, we are free not to buy their ice cream.  May Ben and Jerry’s go the way of Bud Light.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Is Mexico Our Friend? thumbnail

Is Mexico Our Friend?

/in , , , , /by

By Bruce Bialosky

The United States has enjoyed unique stature among the nations of the world. For over a century, we have been separated from the rest of the world by two oceans with two major friendly countries on our northern and southern borders. We have enjoyed particularly cooperative relations with both during this time. Times are changing with our northern neighbor adopting some restrictions not allowed by our Bill of Rights. More importantly, our southern neighbor has policies that are openly hostile to our country and deadly to our citizens.

The first of the two hostile policies is their refusal to stop migrants from traversing their country to arrive at our border with the notion of entering the United States illegally. The second is the production and transporting of harmful drugs that are killing our fellow citizens by the tens of thousands. Both of these policies feed the coffers of criminal cartels within the Mexican borders and are barely combatted by the Mexican government.

The flow of migrants is separate from what the Mexican government has done to encourage their own citizens to break our laws and cross our borders illegally. The principal purpose of sending their own citizens is two-fold. They don’t have to develop their own economic base where their citizens can stay in their country and keep their families together. These people are sending an estimated $60 billion annually from the United States to support their families and the floundering Mexican economy.

How does it help our country to employ people who then ship their earnings out of the country? They don’t spend it in our stores, they don’t pay for their healthcare, and they don’t save for retirement. This is trickle-out economics.

It has been suggested that we impose a 10% excise tax on those wire transfers. My suggestion is more like 25%. That will put a monkey wrench in the Mexican government’s scheme to freeload on our country and encourage illegal border crossing.

The second aspect of the illegal migrants entering our country from Mexico is the people traversing from Mexico’s southern border through their country to enter our country. Mexico is aware the people entering their own country from the worldwide movement have little interest in remaining there because of their dysfunctional national government and rampant lawlessness. If Mexico was really our friend, they would halt all traffic coming through their own southern border and further stop them at other choke points throughout the country. They have made little effort to stop this because their criminal element profits significantly, which then feeds their corrupt regional and national governments.

The second reason to be concerned as to whether Mexico is our friend concerns the drugs coming across our southern border. Forty years ago, we had a serious problem with cocaine and heroin. Those were significant concerns but have become secondary to the much deadlier drug – fentanyl. As bad as the epidemic of cocaine and heroin was, it pales in comparison to fentanyl. Producing and using that drug outside of a proper medical application has virtually no reason to exist other than to kill people and in this case, Americans.

We know the drug is being produced in Mexico even if the raw materials are being created in China. Since Mexico’s current leader (Andrés Manuel López Obrador or “AMLO”) has taken office, there has been an explosion of fentanyl trafficking offenses as they have increased by 950%.

AMLO has once again denied any responsibility or cooperation. “In Mexico, we don’t produce fentanyl,” he told reporters last month, once again pushing back at Washington. He blames the crisis on a lack of family values in the United States that drives people to use the drug. This comes from the man who destroys families in Mexico by shipping residents to the United States and has turned over large portions of his country to criminal operations threatening the safety of every family in large areas of the country which he is sworn to protect.

The amount of fentanyl seized (God knows how much was actually shipped) just in the month of March was 645 million deadly doses. This is causing the death of an average of 196 Americans per day. Every day. If we had an enemy army on our border killing that many Americans, we would certainly not consider them friendly.

Fortunately, a bi-partisan, bicameral group of Congressional members has proposed the Disrupt Fentanyl Trafficking Act of 2023. It calls for not only the intervention of our law enforcement entities but our military to intercede to crush the cartels and their supply lines in Mexico. This should sail through Congress. We have yet to hear from the Biden Administration as to whether they will support this proposed law.

We know AMLO is currently resistant. It might be because he has accounts in Switzerland and/ or the Cayman Islands. He claims it would harm the sovereignty of his country. As if the drug cartels are not harming his sovereignty. Since we have done this intervention with other countries in the past (Colombia) and never taken away any of their sovereignty, his argument rings hollow.

We will soon have a definitive test of whether Mexico is still our friend. As of right now, it is clear to me that we could not have a more clearly defined enemy on our border.

*****

This article was published by Flash Report and is reproduced with permission by the author.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Suicidal Detransitioner Tells Nightmare of Life After Transgender Surgery thumbnail

Suicidal Detransitioner Tells Nightmare of Life After Transgender Surgery

/in , , , /by

By Catherine Salgado

Detransitioners, or transgenders who return to living as their biological sex, tell horror stories about the permanently life-damaging surgeries, hormones, and treatments they got. These tragic stories will only increase exponentially as the government and institutions in America—including much of the medical industry— aggressively pushes transgenderism and cancels anyone who criticizes it.

One common thread through many stories I have read from detransitioners is that they were lied to about their suicide risk if they didn’t transition. Many of these young people say they became transgender, permanently damaging their bodies, out of fear; because their medical experts told them they would commit suicide if they didn’t transition. Instead, their situation worsened after transition.

It is significant that the transgender surgery industry is expected to reach a $5 billion value by 2030. Children and teens are being mutilated for money.

Shared by Libs of TikTok (T likely stands for testosterone and “too surgery” is likely a misprint for “top surgery,” which involves a double mastectomy for biological girls and fake breast implants for biological boys):

This victim of LGBTQ insanity needs our prayers, as do so many others. The radical left is deliberately destroying young people’s lives in pursuit of the transgender cult.

*****

This article was published by Pro Deo et Libertate and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Reinvigorating the Arizona GOP thumbnail

Reinvigorating the Arizona GOP

/in , , /by

By Michael Infanzon

The Arizona Republican Party has been facing a series of challenges that threaten its long-standing position as the majority party in the state. From financial difficulties to the growing number of independent voters and the slim majority in the state legislature, it is crucial for the GOP to assess its current leadership and implement necessary changes to remain a dominant force in Arizona politics. In this piece, we will explore the potential consequences of maintaining the status quo and outline potential solutions to revitalize the party’s influence.

1. Consequences of Maintaining the Current Leadership:

a. Diminished Public Perception: Continuing with ineffective leadership could erode public trust and confidence in the Arizona Republican Party, leading to a decline in voter support and a weaker position in future elections.

b. Reduced Fundraising Capacities: Financial problems within the party can undermine campaign efforts, limit resources for candidate support, and hinder the ability to engage with voters effectively.

c. Failure to Appeal to Independent Voters: Neglecting the increasing number of independent voters will result in missed opportunities to broaden the party’s base and secure crucial swing votes.

2. Solutions to Reclaim Influence:

a. Reinvigorating Leadership: The Arizona GOP needs visionary leaders who can articulate a clear party vision, effectively communicate party principles, and inspire grassroots engagement. A fresh perspective and innovative strategies will be essential for regaining public trust and attracting new supporters.

b. Prioritizing Grassroots Organizing: A comprehensive grassroots organizing strategy will help the party build a strong network of committed volunteers, engage with local communities, and cultivate a sense of belonging among voters. Emphasizing face-to-face interactions and effective communication can help regain lost ground.

c. Expanding Outreach Efforts: Recognizing the importance of independent voters, the GOP must adapt its message and policies to resonate with this demographic. Engaging in meaningful dialogues, focusing on shared values, and demonstrating a commitment to pragmatic solutions can help bridge ideological divides and win over independent voters.

d. Strengthening Financial Management: The party leadership must adopt prudent financial management practices to address the reported financial problems. Implementing transparent accounting systems, fostering responsible fundraising strategies, and ensuring efficient allocation of resources is critical to the GOP’s success.

The Arizona Republican Party is at a crossroads, and the decisions made today will shape its future trajectory. Failing to address the challenges at hand and adjust the party’s course accordingly could lead to diminishing influence and electoral setbacks. By embracing fresh leadership, investing in grassroots organizing, reaching out to independent voters, and strengthening financial management, the GOP can revitalize itself and remain the majority party in Arizona. The time for change is now, and the party must adapt and evolve to secure a prosperous future for conservative ideals in the state.

*****

Michael Infanzon is a political and government policy contributor at The Prickly Pear.

 Michael writes about government policies that affect millions of Americans, from their introduction in the legislature to their implementation and how policies impact our everyday freedoms.

 Michael is the Managing Partner for EPIC Policy Group, located in Phoenix, AZ. EPIC has clients ranging from motorcycle rights organizations, firearms organizations, 2A rights organizations, veterans advocacy, chambers of commerce to agricultural products and personal freedoms among other policy issues.

 You can follow Michael on Twitter (@infanzon) and email him at minfanzon@epicpolicygroup.com

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

The Truth About Bidenomics: More Debt, More Inflation thumbnail

The Truth About Bidenomics: More Debt, More Inflation

/in , , , , , /by

By Daniel Lacalle

Estimates of United States growth have improved but remain massively below the Federal Reserve projections.

After the largest monetary and fiscal stimulus in recent years, growth remains well below trend, and debt is significantly higher. It is interesting to hear Janet Yellen say that “trickle-down economics did not work” when this is the failed trickle-down: massive government deficit spending leads to negative real wage growth and weaker GDP.

Current consensus real GDP growth for 4Q23 stands at 0.2 percent, significantly lower than the median projection of one percent in the FOMC’s June Summary of Economic Projections.

The latest figure, for example, shows evidence of headline strength hiding weakness in the details. New durable-goods orders surged in May, but this headline growth disguised that core capital-goods orders were revised down again.

Even if we consider the optimistic assumptions of the Biden administration, which assume a two percent per annum GDP growth until 2032 and 3.8 percent unemployment, the United States federal government deficit would not fall below five percent of GDP even in 2032. That is a deficit that rises from $1.1 trillion in 2023 to $2.01 trillion in 2032, an accumulated deficit between 2023 and 2032 of $15.46 trillion. That is a 106 percent debt to GDP, according to the Biden administration calculations even with very bullish estimates of growth that consider no recession or stagnation in the entire forecast period.

One of the biggest problems of this neo-Keynesian approach to government budgets is that it leaves households with less money in real terms, and the “anti-inflation” measures increase debt and inflation.

Take the American Rescue Plan. It was supposed to be the helicopter money solution to the crisis, giving families cash and supporting consumption through the pandemic. Adjusted for inflation, Bloomberg Economics estimates the average household in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution now has liquid assets worth $1,200 less than they did before covid. You wanted the stimulus check? With printed money? You paid for it multiple times over in higher inflation.

The other key policy items of the Biden administration, the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, were created to incentivize aggregate demand and boost investment in areas where the private sector seemed to be underinvesting. However, it was not the case. The problem is that the government does not have more or better information about the requirements of the real economy, assumes erroneously that the private sector did not invest because of some flaw in the market, and these massive federal expenditure programs generate more inflation as they add artificial demand created with newly printed units of currency to an economy that is already working at full capacity and full employment. Thus, it puts more fuel to the fire of inflation.

Bloomberg Economics warns that “If successful, the benefits of these projects will play out in the long term – and other deliverables, like reduced dependence on China and lower carbon emissions, won’t show up directly in the GDP data. In the near term, our view is that the costs in terms of higher inflation and recession risks offset the benefits and may even outweigh them”. Even if we assume a benign view of multiplier effects, the result is that these plans accelerate the risk of a recession by artificially tightening an already strong labor market and putting more pressure on supply chains.

The Inflation Reduction Act assumes a total of $500 billion in federal expenditure and tax breaks to accelerate investment in clean energy. This was utterly unnecessary when the United States was already a global leader in renewable energy investments, and the program so far has created more inflationary pressures as artificial government spending added to an already hot industry. Furthermore, if there was an industry that required no further support from the government it was the clean energy sector, which had no impact from the pandemic on investor demand and ample financing capacity.

The same happens with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, $550 billion in new spending over five years, included a clearly unnecessary artificial boost to an already booming sector, driving prices much higher.

Even considering revenue-generating measures, and assuming they would work, the net effect “will be to add on average about 0.1 percent of GDP per year to the primary fiscal deficit during that period” according to Bloomberg Economics.

Launching multi-billion spending programs financed with newly created money and debt into an economy that was already running at full capacity has added to inflation and further debilitated the public finances. Meanwhile, the measures taken by the Federal Reserve to reduce the inflationary pressures -that were worsened by the government’s anti-inflation spending programs- make a recession more likely. The Federal Reserve must act to reduce the inflation that the government generates with its anti-inflation spending programs and by doing so, may create a recession as the rate hikes and monetary contraction hinder families and businesses. Brilliant.

When all this fails and revenues fall below estimates, growth deteriorates, or leads to a recession and debt soars, neo-Keynesians will say that another massive government spending program is required.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Free Things From The Government Are Never Free thumbnail

Free Things From The Government Are Never Free

/in , , , , /by

By Dr. Thomas Patterson

American school children are instructed that the late 19th century, the Gilded Age, was dominated by “robber barons“ who made great fortunes creating monopolies that exploited the poor and middle classes.

Howard Zinn‘s best-selling textbook, which introduced generations of Americans to their own history, informed them that “ordinary people who lived through the Gilded Age… experienced tremendous hardships and losses… While they got poor, the rich were getting richer. Another noted economist concurred that “the poor grew helpless, the middle class got swept away“.

But let’s look again. In fact, by the numbers – it was a golden age for American workers.

As Phil Gramm and Amity Shlaes documented in the Wall Street Journal, between 1870 and 1900, the national GNP rose 233%, per capita GNP surged by 90% and wages increased 53%, all inflation adjusted. Meanwhile, food costs and other necessities fell by 70%. Better yet, the illiteracy rate fell by 46%, life expectancy rose by 12.5% and infant mortality declined by 17%.  The people did OK when the government stayed on the sidelines.

But Americans, then as now, misread their history and so were doomed to repeat it. Modern progressivism was born in response to the purported outrages of the plutocrats. Government controls stifled economic growth and innovation. Later, big government was credited by many with pulling us out of the depression.

By the 1970s, the damaging effects of the dead hand of government were so obvious that Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter led a massive deregulation movement – airlines, communications, energy, and other sectors – that ushered in the tech revolution and renewed prosperity.

But the tendency to regard socialistic policies as inherently good is so ingrained in human nature that once again we have already forgotten the lessons learned. Now the Biden administration is creating a new industrial policy in which government handouts are lavishly dispensed but conditioned on compliance with progressive mandates.

For example, America’s semiconductor chip producers scored a $280 billion subsidy recently, on the grounds that their sector was ailing financially and its health was so important to the economy generally that it was, you know, too big to fail. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo was very explicit about the strings attached, “if Congress wasn’t going to do what they should’ve done [in the Build Back Better bill], we’re going to do it in the implementation“.

She meant it. For starters, chipmakers receiving $150 million or more in federal aid will be required to provide childcare to their employees and construction workers that have been crafted in “tandem with community stakeholders including…local groups with expertise in administering childcare” i.e. lefty nonprofits.

Chipmakers will also have to pay construction workers prevailing wages set by unions and abide by “project labor agreements” which allow unions to mandate conditions and benefits for all workers, union members or not.

That’s not all. The “lucky“ chipmakers must also provide “paid leave and caregiving support“ to employees as well as wraparound services such as adult care, transportation, and housing assistance to the disadvantaged or underserved.

Centralized economic planning is once again butting up against economic reality. Chip manufacturers have already been transferring production overseas because costs are 40% higher stateside. Any benefit from the subsidies will be so offset by the increased costs that the net profit may be questionable.

Still, other industries are eagerly lining up for their government handouts. In their ceaseless efforts to socialize their losses while retaining profits themselves, banks lobbied the FDIC to guarantee uninsured deposits without limit after the recent midsize bank collapses. Broadband providers received tens of billions and grants to states to build high-speed broadband to subsidize low-income purchases of Internet service plans.

Years ago, EV producers received temporary subsidies as start-up inducers, which, of course, aren’t going away at all,  They just keep expanding, like $523 billion over 10 years for vehicle consumer and battery production tax credits.

As the chipmakers are discovering, the effect of all this free stuff from the government is to make big businesses the compliant wards of the state. Thus the administration imposes a cradle-to-grave welfare system through centralized industrial policy, while unconstitutionally usurping congressional authority in the bargain.

It’s the path to nowhere – again.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

It Is No Longer A Case of TINA (There Is No Alternative) thumbnail

It Is No Longer A Case of TINA (There Is No Alternative)

/in , , , /by

By Neland Nobel

Since our last report the Federal Reserve has met, left interest rates unchanged, but consequently has made a lot of noise that at least two more interest rate hikes will be forthcoming.

Given tight labor conditions and the persistence of inflation,  one wonders why they hesitated, then thought differently, and have subsequently tried to make up rhetorically for what they failed to do.  But trying to divine what the  Masters of the Universe at the FED will do, is more than a cottage industry on Wall Street and we claim no great expertise.

While we acknowledged the undeniable better technical action in the stock market and added modestly to positions to accommodate that improved price action, we suggested that investors remain restrained because of narrow and distorted stock leadership (just seven giant tech firms accounted for 98% of the increase in the broad Wilshire 5000 Index), very high sentiment (investor enthusiasm has become dangerously excessive), overbought momentum, and a very muddled economic background.  We want to remain mentally open to further stock advances, but just remain unconvinced that “a new bull market” has commenced.

The reliance on “20% advance=new bull market” is in our opinion, an overly restricted view of things.  After all, there have been about a dozen rallies of 20% that were not bull markets.  In addition, enduring bull markets start from a level of market undervaluation and public despair, which is the opposite description of today’s market environment.

If we are indeed in a new bull market, broader participation must take place, and pretty soon.  Some widening has occurred but, the evidence is inconclusive.

Most stock indexes calculated without “the magnificent seven” are basically flat on the year.

That cannot be said for the falling bond market,  which moves opposite the direction of interest rates with mathematical certainty.

While stock action has been muddled after a strong start to the year, interest rates are rising and dropping bond prices in the marketplace even while the FED “paused” in executing its regime of tightening.

It would seem the market itself is doing what the FED failed to do, that is, increase interest rates.

Why the market would be doing this is a bit of a puzzle.  Inflation has been moderating but remains very sticky with a very tight labor market.  However, we think it has something to do with the “debt ceiling” agreement and huge government borrowing.  The government was basically out of the credit markets because of the debt ceiling dispute and now they are borrowing huge sums of money.  FED rhetoric is also an influence.  Whatever the factors that may be in play, interest rates in the marketplace are rising.

With the government issuing a huge supply of debt, and at the same time, the FED is shrinking its balance sheet (selling even more existing debt), the market will experience a huge increase in the supply of debt.  More supply without a corresponding increase in demand means lower bond prices, another way of saying interest rates will go higher.

This raises very important questions for investors: How long can the economy hold up with interest rates increasing?  At what rate do we hit an inflection point that starts to really damage commerce? How long and at what level will interest rates stop or reverse the short-term favorable trend in stock action so far this year?  Will the FED keep the pressure on too long and commit policy errors?

Unfortunately, we don’t know, and we don’t know anyone else who knows the answers to those questions.  But what we do know is that rising rates after an environment of easy money, and excessive credit expansion spurred by years of zero-rate policies, will likely uncover all the economic misallocations of capital that always occur in such periods of easy money.  Bad loans beget bad projects and both will likely have to be purged from the system.

Moreover, as economist Ed Easterling has pointed out, markets and the economy can adjust to both high and low rates, but what really causes disruption is a rapid rate of change in interest rates, and that has certainly been the case over the past year or so.

That is one of the reasons we advised only modest allocation changes and that caution should still be exercised.

So not only are domestic interest rates rising, most foreign central banks, unlike the FED, have been increasing their interest rates as well.  This means global conditions in the credit markets are getting tighter as well as here in the US.

As we write, the yield on the 1-year US Treasury Bond is now over 5.44%, breaking the line of resistance we see going back to 2006.

With a $32 trillion dollar debt, Uncle Sam is going to be paying a lot more in interest, which has the self-feeding effect of increasing the deficit even further (debt spiral).

Since this rate is considered “risk-free”, everyone else who wants to borrow will have to pay higher rates for the money they borrow.  This includes states and municipal governments as well as private industry.

There is a huge sea of variable rates mortgages that must be refinanced and many analysts worry about sectors of commercial real estate that must pay higher rates all the while vacancies rise (this is particularly true of office space) and sectors of the dying brick and mortar retailers continue to struggle.

The pressure from rising interest rates already has hit the banking sector and we have had three of the four largest bank failures in history, even with the economy doing reasonably well.   According to the Wall Street Journal, the government is in fact attempting to lure retired bank examiners back into action. It makes one wonder about what would happen if rates go higher and the economy were to turn down.

Rising rates we think are largely responsible for pushing gold back around the area of $1900.

Speaking of mortgages, the rate now for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage has risen to 6.8%percent, very near its high of last October.  This makes buying a home much more expensive and if we break into new highs, that could have psychological effects as well.

The one bright spot in this scenario is that for investors who desire lower-risk investment, the yield on short to intermediate US Treasury Bonds is much more attractive than they have been for quite some time. In recent years,  money managers would justifiably plead TINA (there is no alternative) which forced many to participate in an expensive stock market.  FED policies of low or zero rate interest rates all but destroyed traditional safe alternatives.  That is no longer the case and the higher rates go, the more attractive bond alternatives become.  Even if your timing is off a bit, if you buy shorter maturities you are guaranteed to get your money back at maturity.

While there remains a lot of liquidity out there because of excessive government spending, stock buyers cannot be assured it will all flow to their preferred investment.

There is one other sobering thought that bears consideration.  While rates are rising, it is occurring mostly in the shorter-term Treasury market.  As we said before, this will sooner or later cause everyone else to compete.  Moreover, shorter-term rates are rising above longer-term rates,  and this “inversion” of rates is unusual.

There have been only three times in history the yield curve has been this inverted: 1929, 1973, and 1979-80.  We lived through the last two and have read about the first one. It was not pleasant.

Historically speaking, inverted yield curves are a sign of credit distress and usually presage a recession. If the latter condition does prevail, it could make life difficult for both investors and political candidates in 2024.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.