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.

DeSantis On What The 2024 Primary Race Is About: ‘2024 Is The Time To Put Up Or Shut Up’ thumbnail

DeSantis On What The 2024 Primary Race Is About: ‘2024 Is The Time To Put Up Or Shut Up’

/in , , , /by

By Daily Wire News

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis appeared to take a veiled shot at former President Donald Trump on Friday as the two Republican heavyweights fight it out for the party’s 2024 presidential nomination.

Speaking at the Moms For Liberty summit in Philadelphia, DeSantis spoke with a sense of urgency about some of the initiatives the political Left is pursuing across the country, especially as it relates to exposing young children to graphic sexual material and agendas.

“And this has gone on across this country for far too long,” DeSantis said. “2024 is the time to put up or shut up. No more excuses about why we can’t win against the Left; no more excuses about why you didn’t do what you said you would do. The time to act is now, and I believe if we do it right, 2024 is going to be the year when the parents across this country finally fight back.”

“Now it can be done, because I can tell you in Florida, we have shown what winning looks like,” he added. “We have beat the Left on issue after issue after issue. And we were able to deliver the greatest Republican electoral triumph in our state’s history in November of 2022. This can happen nationally. We will win these battles all across the nation.”

WATCH:

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT:

RON DESANTIS, GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA (R): When I see events like they had in New York City where they’re chanting, some drag queen, “we are coming for your kids.” Let me tell you something, you start messing with our kids, we’ve got problems. And I think what we’ve seen across this country in recent years has awaken the most powerful political force in this country, mama bears. And they’re ready to roll. And we’ve done so much on these issues in Florida, and I will do all this as the next President, but I see the issue not just through the lens of a Governor or presidential candidate, I see these issues through the lens of a dad of a six, a five and a three-year-old. And my wife and I really believe that parents in this country should be able to send their kids to school, should be able to let them watch cartoons, or just be kids without having some agenda shoved down their throat.

And this has gone on across this country for far too long. 2024 is the time to put up or shut up. No more excuses about why we can’t win against the Left; no more excuses about why you didn’t do what you said you would do. The time to act is now and I believe if we do it right, 2024 is going to be the year when the parents across this country finally fight back.

Now it can be done, because I can tell you in Florida, we have shown what winning looks like. We have beat the Left on issue after issue after issue. And we were able to deliver the greatest Republican electoral triumph in our state’s history in November of 2022. This can happen nationally. We will win these battles all across the nation. And we will make sure that this country, not just the Free State of Florida, but the entire United States stands for the rights of parents and for the well-being of our children.

Now in Florida, we didn’t just give lip service to this, because it’s very easy to do that, people talk and then you never see follow up. We have enacted a Parent’s Bill of Rights in the state of Florida because we understand that the purpose of our school systems are to support the communities, to support students, and parents; it is not to supersede the rights of parents. Parents, parents have a fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children and that means being involved in what is being taught in their school. It also means that every parent in this country should be able to have the wherewithal to send their kid to the school of their choice. We’ve made that a reality in Florida. We’ve signed Universal Education Savings Account legislation so the money will follow the student and the parent and you’re in a situation where you can make intelligent decisions. And what we’ve done in Florida has worked.

*****

This article was published by The Daily Wire 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.

Tucson Being Emulated by Scottsdale thumbnail

Tucson Being Emulated by Scottsdale

/in , , , /by

By Craig J. Cantoni

Tucson has a weird system of ward voting, and there is a movement in Scottsdale to adopt something similar.

The City of Tucson has a weird election system in which voters in wards select candidates for the city council in a primary election, but then all voters in the city, regardless of the ward they reside in, can vote for any candidate in the general election. 

Critics of the system, especially Republicans, say that it is one of the reasons for the city having a de facto one-party city government for decades.  It is almost impossible, they claim, for a candidate from the GOP to win a city council general election.  As such, in what is probably a quixotic effort, they are trying to get a measure passed to revamp the system

My belief is that a one-party city government is a prescription for dysfunction and hubris, regardless of which party has been in control for decades.  That’s certainly true for Tucson.

Now, amazingly, the mayor of Scottsdale and other influencers in that city wants to adopt a ward system for council elections.  Since there is no ballot measure yet, it’s unclear if the system would mirror Tucson’s system or would allow winning candidates from newly established wards to be elected without having to win a city-wide vote.  Either way, the proponents of a ward system for Scottsdale are trying to fix a system that isn’t broken and that has worked very well.

Scottsdale has nonpartisan, city-wide elections, and council candidates have to win over voters from the entire city, a city of 241,361 people.

My opinion is that Scottsdale is one of the best-run cities in America, an opinion that was formed from the seven years that I covered the city and the rest of the Northeast Valley of metro Phoenix as a community columnist for the Arizona Republic.  It’s an opinion backed up by demographic facts.

However, because Scottsdale is a long but narrow city, with the southern half being the oldest and least wealthy, some residents in the southern half don’t agree with that assessment.  They have claimed for a long time that they get shortchanged in attention and money from City Hall, especially because the majority of council members live in the northern half.

My past research showed that the claim of being shortchanged was poppycock, and I came to that conclusion as a longtime resident of the southern half.  The city has spent huge sums on beautification and redevelopment in the southern half, including the Sky Song center at Scottsdale and McDowell roads, the beautification of Indian Bend Rd., the code enforcement and property maintenance enforcement that stopped a south side neighborhood from becoming slum-like, the corresponding extra policing on the south side, the events and amenities at the Civic Center Plaza, and the redevelopment and revitalization of parts of downtown and Old Town, including the beautiful Waterfront development next to Fashion Square Mall.

In addition, the south side benefits the most from the beautiful Indian Bend Wash and its string of parks, athletic fields, golf courses, fishing lakes, and immaculately maintained walking and biking paths.  The wash runs south from Shea Blvd. to the city limit of Tempe, and from there, it continues to Tempe Town Lake, where the walk/bike path merges into a walk/bike path that runs east and west along the Salt River.

Incidentally, the Indian Bend Wash is an example of Scottsdale’s tradition of visionary government.  Many years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers had wanted to control flooding by cementing over the wash and turning it into a permanent eyesore. The city prevailed in transforming it into what it is today:  a green belt of parks and other attractions used by not only Scottsdale residents but residents of other municipalities.

Tucson hasn’t fared as well as Scottsdale.  That’s an opinion that I formed from living in metro Tucson for the last six years and from studying key demographics for the city and surrounding county.

Don’t take my word for it.  Take the word of Area Vibes, which is an organization and website (areavibes.com) that compares cities on several variables.  Below are the grades that it gives Tucson and Scottsdale on what I consider to be the factors that best reflect the differences in how the two cities have been governed over the last half-century.

Tucson Scottsdale
Crime F B-
Employment D A+
Schools D+ A-
Amenities B A+

Tucson would get another “F” and Scottsdale would get another “A+” if upkeep, code enforcement, the condition of streets, and the cost and responsiveness of city government were considered.

Many in the Tucson establishment rationalize Tucson’s lower grades by the fact that it isn’t as wealthy as Scottsdale.  They have a point, given that Scottsdale’s median household income of approximately $91,000 is nearly two times greater than Tucson’s median household income.  That puts Scottsdale’s income at about the same level as the suburban area of metro Tucson known as the Foothills, which is in unincorporated Pima County.

But Scottsdale’s higher income didn’t happen by chance or an act of God.  It was the result of its nonpartisan election/political system and its visionary city leaders, especially former Mayor Herb Drinkwater.

Moreover, Scottsdale isn’t very wealthy compared to truly wealthy locales, although its first-class amenities and appearance suggest otherwise.  For example, the St. Louis suburb of Ladue has a median household income that is 2.7 times greater than Scottsdale’s.  In a similar vein, income is 1.7 times greater in Mountain View, California; 2.3 times greater in Chevy Chase, Maryland; and 2.2 times greater in Paradise Valley, Arizona, a town next door to Scottsdale.

In conclusion, it’s hard to see what Scottsdale would gain by emulating Tucson.

TAKE ACTION

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

China Seek Military Dominance Through Fossil Fuels thumbnail

China Seek Military Dominance Through Fossil Fuels

/in , , , , , /by

By Ronald Stein

As the world watches, China has been aggressively building its fleet of ships and aircraft in anticipation of a potential attack on Taiwan.

To support that military domination, China is also aggressively building its fossil fuel refining capabilities to power those ships and aircraft. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden is aggressively campaigning to rid America of fossil fuels, inclusive of in-America oil production and oil refining!

For all Americans, the 42-minute CBS 60 Minutes presentation video is a must viewing of The state of the U.S. Navy as China builds up its naval force and threatens Taiwan. CBS also provided a transcript of the July 2nd presentation for reading at your leisure.

Probably due to time constraints for the excellent 60 Minutes broadcast was CBS’s lack of coverage of China’s expansion of its refining capabilities to manufacture OPEC and Russian oil into the fuels needed by China’s growing fleet of ships and aircraft.

Asia is the region with the greatest number of future petroleum refineries. The amount of oil fed through refineries in Asia has significantly increased in the past three decades as demand for manufactured fuels and petroleum products surged in developing countries such as China and India, with significantly less stringent environmental regulations than those in America. As reported by Reuters, China’s oil refining capacity overtook the United States as the world’s largest in 2022.

Unbeknownst to President Joe Biden is that China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin are great War historians. As World War I and II historians, Russia, China, and OPEC know, the country that controls the minerals, crude oil, and natural gas, controls the world!

Biden has a short memory of petrochemical products and human ingenuity being the reasons for the world populating from 1 to 8 billion in less than two hundred years. Ridding America of oil before identifying a replacement is immoral and evil, as extreme shortages of the products and fuels now manufactured from fossil fuels will result in billions of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths and will have overwhelmingly negative impacts on GDP, national security, and development.

With China pursuing military domination, President Joe Biden continues moving to rid America of fossil fuels while simultaneously pursuing the generation of occasional electricity from wind turbines and solar panels. Thus, Biden is doing an excellent job of actively relinquishing “CONTROL” of the crude oil supply to OPEC and Russia and refining capacity to China!

In January 2019, there were 135 operating refineries in America. As of January 1, 2023, there were 129 operable petroleum refineries in the United States. The recent closures have resulted in the United States losing nearly 1 million barrels per day of oil refining capacity, with more set to be shuttered in the next few years.

The future does not bode well as 20 percent of the 700 worldwide aging refineries are projected to close in the next five years, which will result in less manufacturing with the loss of 140 sites to meet the ever-growing demands of ships, aircraft, and the derivatives needed for all the products demanded by society. With less manufacturing in wealthy countries in the days ahead, further shortages and inflation of both fuels and products in perpetuity are guaranteed.

In the years ahead, as Biden focuses on ridding the USA of fossil fuels, America’s powerful and elite military fleet of ships and aircraft will become more dependent on the fuels and oil-based products manufactured in China’s refineries!

*****

This article was published by CFACT, The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, 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 11, 2023 thumbnail

Arizona News: July 11, 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.

Gov. Hobbs Using $60 Million Intended For Homeless To House, Feed Illegal Immigrants

House Speaker Tells Gov. Hobbs To Rescind Conversion Therapy Order

Petersen Calls For Meeting With Hobbs To Discuss Recent Administrative Actions

Scottsdale Elementary Principal On LGBTQ+ Activist Board Wins Principal Of Year

State representative questions Scottsdale about hotel to be used as homeless shelter

Contraceptives Now Available Without Prescriptions At Arizona’s Pharmacies

Arizona Is 2023’s 8th Least Energy-Expensive State

TAKE ACTION

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

New Private Emails Further Enforce Fauci Covid Conspiracy thumbnail

New Private Emails Further Enforce Fauci Covid Conspiracy

/in , , , , , /by

By Corey Walker

David M. Morens, an advisor to Dr. Anthony Fauci at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), reportedly attempted to evade potential Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by using his personal email instead of his professional email, according to The Intercept.

“As you know, I try to always communicate on gmail because my NIH email is FOIA’d constantly,” Morens wrote in a 2021 email, The Intercept reported. “Stuff sent to my gmail gets to my phone,” Morens added, “but not my NIH computer.”

In subsequent messages obtained by The Intercept, he acknowledged that his personal email had been hacked and that he would need to revert back to his NIH email for communication purposes. Morens had purportedly been communicating with other scientists that were outspoken proponents of the natural origin theory of COVID-19.

In these communications Morens and his contemporaries allegedly slammed outlets that claimed COVID-19 could have potentially emerged from a lab leak in Wuhan, China, according to The Intercept.

“The lab leakers are already stirring up bullshit lines of attack that will bring more negative publicity our way — which is what this is about — a way to line up the [gain-of-function] attack on Fauci, or the ‘risky research’ attack on all of us,” Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, wrote, The Intercept reported.

“Do not rule out suing these assholes for slander,” Morens wrote, according to the outlet.

In a purported exchange with Bloomberg reporter Jason Gale, Morens said that he was given the go-ahead to discuss the issue of COVID-19 origins, as long as he did not discuss “Tony,” an apparent reference to Fauci, the outlet noted. “Tony doesn’t want his fingerprints on origin stories,” Morens said in 2021.

Morens received a letter from the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic regarding his purported use of a personal email account. Republican Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup, chair of the subcommittee, wrote that the documents obtained by The Intercept “suggest that you may have used your personal e-mail to avoid transparency and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), potentially intentionally deleted federal records, and acted in your official capacity to disparage your fellow scientists, including by encouraging litigation against them.”

Wenstrup wrote that the subcommittee had further questions and wanted to interview Morens, according to New York Post.

“Public health officials are not above the law — especially in times of crisis,” Wenstrup told Morens. “These emails raise additional serious concerns about your objectivity while stationed in the Office of the Director of NIAID—an agency that obligates billions of dollars annually. The Select Subcommittee has questions about whether you made or influenced any funding decisions based on your personal motives or biases towards scientists,” the outlet noted.

*****

This article was published by the Daily Caller 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.

‘Sound of Freedom’ Rings: Jim Caviezel’s Sex Trafficking Thriller Punches Out Indiana Jones at July 4 Box Office thumbnail

‘Sound of Freedom’ Rings: Jim Caviezel’s Sex Trafficking Thriller Punches Out Indiana Jones at July 4 Box Office

/in , , , , /by

By Tyler O’Neil

Angel Studios’ “Sound of Freedom,” an action thriller exposing the child sex slave trade featuring “Passion of the Christ” actor Jim Caviezel, sold more tickets heading into its opening day July 4 than the blockbuster wannabe “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.”

“As exciting that it is to hit the number 1 spot for this summer opening, it doesn’t even come close to the excitement that the number means for awareness of this issue,” Jordan Harmon, co-owner of Angel Studios, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview Wednesday.

“Sound of Freedom” topped the charts with $14.3 million in ticket sales at 2,634 theaters on the Fourth of July, according to Box Office Mojo. “Indiana Jones” came in second with $11.7 million at 4,600 theaters. Disney’s “Elemental,” with $2.8 million at 3,650 theaters, was a distant third.

Harmon said Angel had internal data showing that the film would likely bring in “significantly more than anybody projected,” but “this blew us away.”

“The early projections had the Sound of Freedom at $10 million for the whole week, to do $14-plus million on opening day is wild,” he added. “We’re thrilled to death, there’s a lot to do and there’s awareness to be brought to this incredible cause.”

“That number is a reflection of the lives that will be rescued from this darkness,” Harmon declared.

“Sound of Freedom” tells the story of Tim Ballard (Caviezel), a former agent at the Department of Homeland Security who rescued hundreds of children from sex slavery. Ballard has warned that the Biden administration’s border policy and its transgender ideology aid and abet the evils of the global child sex slave trade. As an actor, Caviezel has spoken out against the legacy media for burying such important issues.

Yet some news outlets have questioned the Caviezel film’s impressive haul, claiming that some of the tickets don’t count. Deadline’s Anthony D’Alessandro had the top two spots reversed, claiming that Indy “officially wins” with $11.698 million and “Sound of Freedom” takes a respectable second with $11.5 million. Why the disparity?

“Angel Studios is a using a crowdfunding platform to spur its ticket sales. Known as Pay It Forward, the patent-pending technology from the distributor is billed as empowering moviegoers to purchase tickets for other people,” the Deadline reporter explained.

Angel Studios launched Pay It Forward for the movie “His Only Son,” and it uses the program to enable viewers to purchase episodes of the hit streaming series about Jesus, “The Chosen,” so others can watch it for free online.

Angel Studios CEO Neal Harmon touted Pay It Forward in his statement on “Sound of Freedom” hitting the top spot at the box office. The company’s press release reads: “Angel Studios’ Pay It Forward Technology Propels Sound of Freedom to #1 movie in America July 4th.”

“The industry’s tossing and turning to even understand what we’re doing,” Jordan Harmon told The Daily Signal. “They don’t really know how to even process that we’ve created a new way for box office to increase drastically.”

With Pay It Forward, there are three potential buckets of tickets: tickets for July 4 showings that audiences purchased, tickets that people purchased through Pay It Forward before July 4 that were claimed for July 4 showings, and tickets that people purchased through Pay It Forward that are still available for people to claim for showings after July 4. These unclaimed tickets may play a similar role to pre-purchased tickets, when someone buys a ticket on July 4 for a showing that will take place at a later date, such as July 8.

Since distributors report their own box office numbers, “every studio probably has its own methodologies,” Harmon explained. While most distributors probably count “butts in seats” for the gross box office, Angel Studios has its own method of counting Pay It Forward tickets.

Harmon said “it doesn’t really matter” how Angel counts the ticket sales because “we’re never going to double-count tickets or purchases.” He reiterated that Hollywood doesn’t know what to make of Pay It Forward because “it’s never been done before.”

The Angel Studios film “His Only Son,” which tells the story of Abraham and his son Isaac, outpunched “Creed III” at the box office earlier this year.


Disney did not respond to a request for comment about the Pay It Forward numbers by publication time.

*****

TAKE ACTION

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

Review: Covid Vax Caused Majority of Deaths Post-Jab thumbnail

Review: Covid Vax Caused Majority of Deaths Post-Jab

/in , , , /by

By Catherine Salgado

“COVID-19 Vaccine is the Culprit in Majority Found Dead after Injection”

Back in February, a paper argued that 13 million people had been killed by Covid-19 vaccines worldwide. That’s one of many dozens of studies and pieces of research showing the devastating effects of the Covid vaccines, which have killed or injured tens of millions.

The latest piece of evidence was just covered on the Substack of renowned cardiologist, internist, epidemiologist, and Covid truth-teller Dr. Peter McCullough:

“[Courageous Discourse] As government and public health officials squirm with more published deaths coming out on a daily basis, the final retort of ‘you cannot prove the vaccine caused the death’ has just been blown out of the water!

Hulscher et al have published the largest accumulation of autopsy result in deaths after COVID-19 vaccination. From a total of 325 cases, independent review found the COVID-19 vaccine was the cause of death in 73.9%. The vast majority had the cardiovascular system as the single fatal organ system injury to the body.”

Don’t expect any apologies or coverage from the mainstream media, though. The Covid vaccines are deadly, but they made Big Pharma billions of dollars and provided the government an excuse for more control. Oh, and the globalists want to reduce the world’s population significantly anyway. This is all part of the plan.

*****

This article was published by Pro Deo et Liberate 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.

Here’s What You Need To Know About France’s ‘Summer Of Love’ Riots thumbnail

Here’s What You Need To Know About France’s ‘Summer Of Love’ Riots

/in , , , /by

By Shawn Fleetwood

The ongoing situation in France bears a striking resemblance to the Black Lives Matter and Antifa violence that engulfed American cities following the May 2020 death of George Floyd.

French authorities have estimated that rioters have burned or looted more than 1,100 public and private buildings over the past week in their violent response to a police shooting involving a 17-year-old French citizen of Algerian descent.

On Wednesday, a French news outlet reported that, according to the country’s Ministry of the Interior, roughly 1,105 buildings including police stations, town halls, and schools have been assaulted since riots began on June 27. French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire told a CNN affiliate that more than 1,000 businesses have been “vandalised, attacked or set on fire.” The damages are estimated to cost over $1 billion.

The impetus for the nationwide violence occurred on June 27, when a French police officer shot and killed 17-year-old “Nahel M.” during a traffic stop. While exact details of the situation remain unclear, early reports indicate the situation unfolded after police pulled the young man over in a Paris suburb for allegedly breaking traffic rules. According to Fox News, police have reportedly claimed Nahel “drove his car at one of the officers, while the video [of the incident] shows one of the officers pointing a weapon at him and saying, ‘You are going to get a bullet in the head.’”

“The officer then appears to shoot Nahel as the car suddenly pulls away, traveling only a short distance before crashing, with Nahel dying at the scene. Police took the offending officer into custody and opened an investigation into charges of voluntary manslaughter, with charges brought against him on Friday,” the Fox report reads. The officer’s lawyers have since claimed their client meant to shoot Nahel in the leg but was bumped into when the car took off and did not intend to kill him.

While Nahel was known to authorities before the incident, he allegedly did not have a criminal record, according to the BBC.

Figures from France’s Ministry of Justice indicate that “3,915 people have been arrested nationwide since Friday — 374 have appeared in court and 120 handed prison sentences,” and the average age of those arrested is 17. Roughly 700 security officials have been injured since the violence began, although “no serious injuries have been reported.”

French President Emmanuel Macron — who was spotted dancing at an Elton John concert while riots engulfed his country — has offered a seemingly mixed response to the riots. While the French president called the shooting of Nahel “inexplicable” and “unforgivable,” he has stopped short of furthering leftist claims there is “systemic racism” within French law enforcement.

Macron also claimed that Big Tech companies such as TikTok and Snapchat have helped fuel the riots. He said his administration will work with social media giants to remove “the most sensitive content” and identify users who “call for disorder or exacerbate the violence.”

On Friday, two unions representing a large swath of French police officers issued a statement condemning Macron for his seemingly lackadaisical response to the riots. The unions additionally called on the president to back French police in their attempts to quell the violence.

“In the face of these savage hordes, calling for calm is not enough, we need to impose it, to re-establish order in the republic and put those arrested beyond where they can act up,” the statement reads.

Marine Le Pen — who ran against Macron in the 2017 and 2022 French presidential elections — also appeared to criticize the president for his handling of the crisis, saying in a June 29 tweet thread that France “is getting worse and worse and the French are paying the terrible price for this cowardice.” The government has since deployed 45,000 officers to handle the riots.

The ongoing situation in France bears a striking resemblance to the violence from the Black Lives Matter and Antifa “summer of love” that engulfed American cities following the May 2020 death of George Floyd. Much like the French incident, leftist anarchists in America used Floyd’s death as a pretext to riot, loot, and burn major cities across the country. And much like the French government’s response to the crisis, many U.S. officials waited until after the damage had been done and lives were lost to deploy effective countermeasures to quell the violence.

*****

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.

Can the Military Solve its Recruiting Crisis?

/in , , , /by

By Rafi Schwartz

The country’s armed services are scrambling to address a significant drop in people signing up to serve Uncle Sam

It’s been fifty years since Defense Secretary Melvin Laird announced the end of the nation’s military draft system, writing in a memo to senior Defense Department officials: “With the signing of the peace agreement in Paris today, and, after receiving a report from the Secretary of the Army that he foresees no need for further inductions, I wish to inform you that the armed forces henceforth will depend exclusively on volunteer soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.” After a quarter century of continuous, mandatory military service, Laird’s announcement marked the close of a major chapter in American conscription practice, and fundamentally altered the public’s perception of what the armed services are, and to whom they belong. 

Now, more than a half-century later, the country’s all-volunteer force has reached a crisis point; 2022 was the Army’s worst recruiting year since the end of the draft in 1973, missing its goal of 60,000 new soldiers by approximately 25 percent. Other military branches have experienced similar shortfalls — a trend that’s fueled the growing question of whether the Pentagon’s recruitment difficulties are a reversible problem or a permanent feature of the 21st century.

“For most Americans,” the country’s all-volunteer force (“AVF”) is “something to be celebrated, but foreign to their daily lives,” said The Atlantic. Eliminating the draft has given the bulk of the population “the freedom to be indifferent to their military, shifting the burden of service to a smaller, self-selected cohort of citizens.” That cohort, frequently comprised of legacy military families, has shifted recently as well, as “disillusioned families steer young people away” from service, The Wall Street Journal reported. “Influencers are not telling them to go into the military,” former Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen told the Journal.

“Moms and dads, uncles, coaches and pastors don’t see it as a good choice”…..

J.K. Rowling’s Moment of Truth thumbnail

J.K. Rowling’s Moment of Truth

/in , , , /by

By Rachel Lu

J. K. Rowling is not a witch. She acquitted herself well in her recent “trial,” by which I mean the podcast series hosted by The Free Press, detailing the explosive controversy between history’s most famous children’s author and liberal progressive activists. It’s cleverly titled The Witch Trials, and it tells the story of Rowling’s rise to fame and her fall into (progressive) infamy. There is extended interview material from Rowling herself, along with some contributions from her detractors and critics. I should warn readers that this is the sort of podcast I had to turn off whenever my kids climbed into the car. Rowling’s battle with transgender ideologues has been exceedingly ugly, and the series makes no effort to sugar-coat this. Nevertheless, the whole story left me oddly hopeful.

That’s not because I am especially sanguine about the transformative power of free speech. The creators of Witch Trials would like us to imbibe that message, in keeping with The Free Press’ wider philosophy. They present this as a cautionary tale about cancel culture, but while I broadly support their principles, Rowling’s travails are in that sense all too familiar, and I wouldn’t have listened to a seven-episode podcast just to remind myself how nutty and intolerant the progressive left has become. What I did enjoy was the eye-opening illustration of how nature perennially reasserts herself, even when people are trying to sprint away from her.

Rowling’s fans feel like she tricked them with a bait-and-switch. A lifelong liberal, she led her readers into what felt to them like a “safe space,” one whose characters grew with them throughout their childhoods. Then, as adults, she shocked them by articulating perennial truths that they preferred not to believe. The hysterical rage was especially fascinating given that the points Rowling was making had always been central to the Harry Potter series. Rowling is a gender complementarian; this has been clear from the earliest Potter books. Further, she very obviously believes that things have natures. Though it is impressive how she personally has been willing to defend her views publicly, instead of cowering before the cancel mobs, there is some level on which this reckoning was bound to happen given the unstable mutations of twenty-first-century gender ideology.

People crave epic stories, meaningful life pursuits, and courageous figures who appear to stand for something. Those goods are only attainable when words mean things, and when we accept certain aspects of the world as fixed, not compliant with our revisionary whims. Progressive activists have for some time been cheerfully torching large portions of American history and Western Civilization more broadly, which is upsetting to some of us, but perhaps just good fun for people who were never taught to value those things in the first place. Eventually, though, iconoclasts find themselves standing, wood bundles and torches in hand, at the foot of something they genuinely love. For this group, Harry Potter turned out to be that thing.

What follows will contain spoilers, if that term still applies to Harry Potter. Perhaps the “Boy Who Lived” has now joined Hamlet, King David, and Gilgamesh as a character whose story the educated reader is simply expected to know. Indeed, I predict that future generations will know him. But I think they will refer to him, to the last, as a “boy.”

The Bait

Millennials worshiped Rowling in childhood. This comes through quite clearly in Witch Trials, as childhood fans gush about the way her books represented a “security blanket” through their childhood and adolescent growing pains. In a way, this is odd, because as children’s books go, Rowling’s are quite dark. Death is a major theme. Political oppression is rampant. Even “good” adults seem to be offering a tutorial in “failure to protect,” as Harry arrives each fall at Hogwarts brimming with eagerness to learn, only to be socially ostracized, plagued with death threats, or both. This is what gives today’s kids warm fuzzies?

My explanation is threefold. First, for all the grimness, Rowling gave her readers a universe that they found morally comfortable. Inclusion was always a major theme. The bad guys, a group of “pureblood” wizards, want to rule the world and ensure that their magical club is restricted to people of noble (magical) birth. They’re one part evil aristocrats protecting their privilege, and one part wand-wielding Nazis crusading under a “dark mark.” Meanwhile, the good guys are crusading for meritocracy, equality, and love, with side plots exploring the ethics of discrimination, especially against house elves (which some wizards regard as natural slaves). Modern readers find themselves right at home in this moral landscape. It is especially clever how the most scorned and discriminated-against group is “Muggles,” or non-magical persons, which is to say, every actual human being on this planet. Look at that! In J. K. Rowling’s universe, we can all be victims.

Dobby is a free elf, and better for it. But he is still happiest and most fulfilled when devoting his energies to the service to others, and Hermione becomes a better house-elf advocate when she accepts this reality.

Rowling’s readers did not only want to be victims, however. They wanted to be heroes as well. This is another major theme of Harry Potter, and the wizarding universe undoubtedly appealed to readers in part because its Millennial audience also hungered to be “seen” and recognized in their personal uniqueness. There is a reason Harry Potter spawned a slew of internet quizzes. Children are initiated into the wondrous world of Hogwarts after discovering that they have an innate capacity for doing magic, and readers then get to follow these elite characters to their posh boarding school, where their unique abilities are further explored and refined. In the very hour of their arrival, their minds are probed by the magical “sorting hat” that assesses their character and places them within the proper House. As they continue at Hogwarts, they may encounter Dumbledore’s Mirror of Erised, which shows each person the deepest desire of his or her heart. Spooky Bogarts bring them face to face with (an illusion of) their greatest fears. The magical Room of Requirement supplies a seeker with whatever he or she happens to need at a given moment, and students eventually learn to cast a magical “patronus charm,” which brings forth a kind of animal-protector in a form that uniquely reflects the caster’s soul.

Why wouldn’t Millennials feel nurtured in this imaginary universe, where exquisitely-individualized magicians battle bigots and bullies? Social conservatives obligingly supplied the final piece of this puzzle by panicking and trying to ban Harry Potter. Alarmed by the references to magic and “witchcraft,” combined with the cultlike character of Harry Potter fanhood, some traditionalists issued their own fatwa against Rowling and tried to get her books removed from school libraries. This was probably silly, but it would be hard to find a more surefire method of convincing the left that Rowling was enlightened, uplifting, and thoroughly “safe.”

The Trap

Harry Potter exploded in the late ’90s and early 2000s. Time passed, and Millennials got older and exulted in their “love wins” moment. Rowling supported this, announcing in 2009 that she saw Albus Dumbledore as gay. But as time passed, and same-sex couples settled into banal normalcy, young adults went searching for new horizons of sexual-identity-based inclusion. Soon growing numbers were identifying as “trans” and demanding hormone blockers and “sex reassignment surgery.” And then, it happened. Their favorite author jumped ship.

Rowling’s objections to the trans movement have mostly been posed in practical terms. She considers it unsafe and unjust to allow physiologically male persons in women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and prisons. She sees it as worrisome, not a sign of progress and liberation when scores of young people are so repulsed by their natural bodies that they consider it unbearable to live in them. But she also objects strongly to terms like “menstruating person” and “chest feeder,” which she clearly sees as degrading to women and mothers. It’s clear from both her books and her public advocacy that Rowling believes in sexual difference, as a real thing that is meaningfully connected to biology. Also, she is clearly interested in natures as such.

First, consider sexual difference. In affairs of the heart, the wizarding world was remarkably conservative. Hogwarts is full of romantic intrigue, all of it heterosexual. Sexual minorities often view Remus Lupin, Rowling’s “high and lonely” outcast, as a kindred spirit, but in the books, he ultimately marries a woman and has a baby with her. Whatever Dumbledore and Grindelwald may have done in their imprudent youth, we see exactly zero settled, same-sex couples in the wizarding world.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that Rowling secretly disapproves of same-sex relationships. She says she doesn’t, and she has proven her willingness to stand by unpopular views. I think she feels real sympathy with gays and lesbians, and also with people who experience gender dysphoria. But her interest as an author always followed the interplay of man and woman, considering what brings them together or drives them apart. Meanwhile, for all their detailed personal development, her characters never explore their gender identities; even when they use Polyjuice’s potion to take on the guise of other people, Harry and Ron always seem to be boys or men, while Hermione is always the girl. There is a scene in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (amusing now to revisit) in which we learn that at Hogwarts, female students may enter the boys’ dormitories, while the reverse is prevented by magical charms. It’s quite remarkable that Rowling’s fans managed to obsess over her books for so many years without noticing how traditional her instincts really are in this regard.

Questions about natures are explored in interesting ways in sub-plots involving non-human species. There are several of these: giants, goblins, house elves, and centaurs, along with some sentient-seeming magical beasts such as hippogriffs, unicorns, and thestrals. Obviously, as mythical species, these are available to Rowling to explore and develop imaginatively. Her creative choices here reveal a deep curiosity about natures as such, and about their role in defining us as persons.

Eventually Rowling herself became a kind of truth martyr, publicly pilloried and bombarded with threats of sexual violence, for refusing to say things she understood to be false. Do we all need scar tissue to teach us the real value of the truth?

On the one hand, she is clearly deeply committed to the premise that persons have intrinsic worth that transcends the particularities of their kind. Even sympathetic characters like Sirius Black can be punished for their failure to treat non-human persons with compassion and respect. On the other hand, characters can also make mistakes by failing to recognize the distinctness of each non-human species, as when Hagrid puts himself and others at risk by refusing to recognize the dangers of keeping vicious monsters as pets. We understand of course that as a “redeemed monster” himself (a half-giant with a heart of gold), he has an irrepressible need to see the benevolent potential in other apparently-monstrous creatures. Unfortunately, much of the time it’s just not there. Hermione, likewise, makes a fool of herself with her juvenile attempts to “liberate” house elves from servitude, while Ron (the stodgy wizard-born traditionalist) steadfastly maintains that the elves really do not want the kind of freedom she envisions for them. We might have expected the liberation-minded feminist to win the day, but it turns out that Ron is correct on this point. The character of Dobby proves, in a very moving way, that house elves are capable of their own kind of freedom, and certainly of love. Dobby is a free elf, and better for it. But he is still happiest and most fulfilled when devoting his energies to the service to others, and Hermione becomes a better house-elf advocate when she accepts this reality.

In Rowling’s mythical “natures,” we can see the curious musings of a person trying to figure out how far nature goes in defining a person’s life and horizons. How do “given” characteristics that we share with others of our kind interface with more universal characteristics of personhood (rationality, intrinsic dignity, a capacity for love)? How are they juxtaposed against unique personal characteristics, and individual hopes and dreams? The Harry Potter stories don’t always provide worked-out answers to these questions, but they are exploring them, and the answers they do give are broadly consistent with the Christian natural rights tradition. Persons are unique, and that uniqueness should be recognized and valued. At the same time, all have dignity, want to love and be loved, and desire freedom.

The Lesson

It really is not possible to tell a good story without drawing on themes like this. Good stories draw from tradition and transcend the particulars of a given historical moment. They appeal to a universal human nature, which is what enables people from across history to be fascinated and moved by the dilemma of Antigone, the courtship of Ruth and Boaz, and the loyalty of Huckleberry Finn. Rowling does tell good stories, which is why I read them as a young adult, and then reread them with my own children. Inclusion and privilege are not the only themes. Rowling also explores friendship and selflessness, obligation and sacrifice, loyalty and forgiveness, and the importance of personal integrity. Her reflections on death are sometimes deeply moving, and it is especially impressive how bad magic is distinguished so clearly from the good. The good kind is lawlike, while bad magic subverts nature and warps the human soul, as power-lust will inevitably do when it is unshackled from justice, love, and the natural law.

My least favorite feature of Harry Potter was always the way that her characters lied so frequently, often for trivial reasons and seemingly without remorse. I saw a deep irony in the situation when Harry was subjected by the repressive Dolores Umbridge to a torture-chamber version of a familiar schoolroom punishment, forced to write repeatedly in his own blood that “I must not tell lies,” until the message was literally etched in scar tissue on his hand. At the time, he was being punished for telling the truth. But in fact, he did tell lies on a regular basis. Was it possible, I wondered, that Umbridge unwittingly helped him towards genuine moral improvement? That question took on another dimension when Rowling herself became a kind of truth-martyr, publicly pilloried and bombarded with threats of sexual violence, for refusing to say things she understood to be false. Free societies are certainly better, but scar tissue can be effective in teaching us the value of truth.

The Millennials are an impious and historically ignorant generation. Still, they were children once. They liked stories back then, as children do. Watching the ghost stories of their own childhoods come back to haunt them, we may reflect that every generation, however hostile to tradition, retains something that it likes from the past. Finding that something can be the key to salvation for many wandering souls.

Rowling is the creator of a magical universe. We thought that Deathly Hallows completed her legacy, but it turned out she had a few more tricks up her sleeve. Many of her former fans have decided that she’s a witch, but she’s been more faithful to them than they know. As the witches of old, she has passed through her moment of infamy, but she may be judged more kindly by generations to come.

*****

This article was published by Law&Liberty 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.

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.