Eleven Most Extreme Policies of Democrat Mark Kelly

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

Democrat Sen. Mark Kelly (AZ) has tried to position himself as a moderate among the extreme positions of the Democrat Party. But in reality, Kelly has supported nearly all the Democrats’ radical policy initiatives throughout his tenure in the Senate.

The list includes:

  1. Casting the deciding vote for President Joe Biden’s wasteful spending that fueled inflation.
  2. Enabling Biden to spend nearly $1 billion in taxpayer money on stimulus checks to criminals in prison, which includes the Boston Marathon Bomber.
  3. Voting for Biden’s “Inflation Reduction Act” that will raise taxes and fund the IRS’s 87,000 new IRS agents.
  4. Voting four times to shut down the Keystone XL pipeline.
  5. Supporting a ban on fracking three times that lead to American energy independence.
  6. Blocking new energy production on federal lands that would have helped lower gasoline prices.
  7. Opposing an effort to block Biden’s plan to export oil from America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve to foreign countries, including China.
  8. Voting three times to defund the construction of the southern border wall.
  9. Refusing to renew Title 42, a Trump-era border policy that expelled illegal immigrants.
  10. Declining to hire 18,000 Border Patrol agents before any new IRS agents are hired.
  11. Breaking his promise to force the Biden administration to fund the Arizona National Guard troops stationed at the border by the state.

Trump-endorsed Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters, the opponent of Kelly, said this week that Kelly’s record of supporting the Democrats’ radical policies will ultimately hurt him among independents…..


Continue reading this article at Breitbart.


Drag Queens Are the New Black Face

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

It is easy to find on YouTube numerous videos of parents dragging their own children to drag queen shows where the children are encouraged to touch the genital areas of the performers or stuff dollar bills into the same geography. Or they will haul their children to a place of learning, usually a library or school, where they can see strange men dressed up as women.

The ostensible reason for this is the holy cause of “diversity” and the acceptance of gay men.

One area to explore is the danger this is to children. The other less explored area is the danger this is to women.

Recently, a woman on Twitter made the comment that drag queens are the new black face. As is typical with Twitter, she had space only for the floating thought, that was left undeveloped. If I could remember who she was, I would be glad to give her complete credit for an eye-opening observation.

That more women are not speaking frankly about this cultural rot is a source for another essay. A few are, but they are still largely silent. Likely, they feel some sort of sympathy. Having struggled as women, they empathize with people struggling to be gay.

Suffice it to say, this man will attempt his own development of this passing observation. We won’t stay silent. It is time for men, who really love and honor women, to speak up. I hope many more women will follow.

For a man to assume the persona of a woman, is a degrading form of cultural appropriation. Having not held down a job and raised children, and been a good wife, all difficult and exhausting tasks; this man has the temerity to put on garish makeup and clothes for a few minutes and pretend to be a woman.

We are supposed to honor his pretensions and celebrate his kinkiness.

The woman he portrays, of course, is not a woman who has endured labor several times and gotten up to nurse and change diapers at 2 am in the morning and then went on to an 8- or 10-hour job. No, he sees a woman through his own sexual desires and designs a highly stylized version of female entertainment for men. Almost always there is makeup applied with a trowel, garish in color, fingernails that could shred a buffalo, a flamboyant dress, huge eyelashes, and enormous artificial breasts. All this is usually in the cause of “pride”, that is to say, his sexuality trumps the normal.

In this “art form”, women are sexual objects for men, projected by a man pretending to be that sexy woman.

This is deeply offensive to all the courageous and caring women around us. I think of my mother, who found in her the energy to love and raise me, even though I was one of eight. I think of my wife of more than 40 years, who trained as a special education teacher, and wound up with an autistic son. She raised two normal girls, wrote three books, acquired credentials as a life coach, and still cares for our 38-year-old son. He needs 24-hour one-on-one care. She has done all this, and still had time for me. What a woman. I think of my sisters, struggling with their lives and yet accomplished in their fields. I think of both of my daughters, strong and accomplished women, who are above all, really good people. I burst with pride when I think of them. I think of my business associate of 15 years, who helped make my success with her hard work and dedication, all done while raising a young family. I think of the female doctors and nurses who have helped me when I was in pain and physical danger. My personal doctor is a woman, my eye doctor is a woman, heck, my veterinarian is a woman.

These were all women of great courage, compassion, intelligence, perseverance…all noble qualities in a man, and equally so in women.

Does this get reduced to stage porn? A man dressed as a woman cavorting provocatively in heavy makeup and plastic boobs? This usually is all promoted by people who tell us women should be more than sexual objects!

Come to think of it, this is degrading even for legitimately sexy women who entertain men. They at least are real women, who know they are titillating men. They are not a man titillating himself.

What was so offensive about blackface?  It was mostly men dressing up as black people without having their difficult “lived experience” and sort of saying, you are inferior to me, but I like the way you can dance and sing, so I will put on makeup and clothes and pretend I am black.  Because it is insulting to black people, the rubes I entertain will find it funny. I will fake the talent you have and express my art because it benefits me, and not you. And, for the black person who may see my display of fake talent, enjoy the show and the mockery I am making of your difficult experience.

So, to the point made by the woman on Twitter, what really is the difference?

We live in the time of “presentism”, a perverse form of historical analysis that judges the action of people and events in history, through the prism of today’s morality and sensibilities. It is almost always selective and dishonest analysis because it assumes that those we criticize from centuries ago have the knowledge we have today. Ironically, the harsh judgments they make about our forefathers are constantly made by people who say we should not be judgmental!

Well, why is making fun of and degrading women by men, gay or not, acceptable? We say this not judging people from the past, but people in the present, by the standards of the present, who lecture the rest of us on being sensitive to others’ “lived experience.” Why is this acceptable to progressive women?  Why is this display of disrespect something we should take our children to see? Why are female librarians and school officials promoting this crap?

It is fascinating to see that progressives, who are big advocates of presentism and critics of “cultural appropriation”, and who pretend to champion women are the very people promoting drag queens and transgenderism in general.

Now it is true drag shows are not new. But previously, they were limited to specialized clubs and other narrow venues of entertainment where ID was checked or the clients controlled. Now, however, activists want these shows for children. What happened to safe spaces for students?

As they say, the word irony just is not sufficient to convey the level of contradiction and hypocrisy we see on display by our cultural elites. How about storybook time, in blackface with dramatic readings from Little Black Sambo?  How would that go down? Well, that is what you are doing to women. Why should the denigration of women be inflicted on children while blackface is banned?

For men who truly love and respect women, we should simply say, you fake sick fools, you are not even a pale shadow of the women I know. Keep your fetish at home. It is not suitable for children and it is degrading and insulting to the brave and inspiring women all around us.

Don’t Take the Bait

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Some  friendly liberal advice to  Republicans.


I want to offer my sincerest apologies for your present illiberal treatment by the Democrats, especially progressive Democrats. Your rights as Americans are being violated—in speech and in deed and in broad daylight. If present trends continue, it’s not going to end well for America.

May I offer you some advice? I know the nature of what you are up against. Progressives are bullies. They don’t like liberals either. Progressives don’t like the idea or reality of dissent. They are impatient with the democratic process and persuasion. It’s either their way or the Substack way. They are unbearable.

Heads up: they are goading you to a prime-time slaughter. A mild-mannered historian, Jon Meacham, framed a Bull Connor of a barn-burner speech for President Biden. As the race-baiting segregationist Connor once sought to do with blacks, Biden’s speech looked to put the deplorable outside our civic and social order as enemies of the people.

Meacham’s speech had a message for two groups of Republicans.

To the mainstream, populist-adjacent Republicans, the message was: It’s time to bend the knee and join the Liz Cheney, Democrat-sanctioned Republican future.

To the “ultra MAGA” Republicans, the message was an intended provocation—a poke in the chest, a double-dare to stand up and push back.

The progressives are ready and want you to show up for a fight. They want you to show yourselves as the animals that they say you are. They are provoking folks who see themselves as American patriots so that they can cast them as domestic terrorists.

Don’t take the bait. They are looking to provoke a civil war. Instead, give them a civil rights response: peaceful and nonviolent protest is the only way forward. That’s the proven way to fight the oppression of greater power with asymmetrical advantages.

It’s good to know the extent of the power behind the provocation, and the comparative strength of your arms.

With regard to voters, the United States is still evenly divided, but below the voter waterline, Democrats and Republicans are far from equals. Democrats have institutional arms that Republicans can’t match and don’t fully appreciate. The commanding heights of education, entertainment, media, Big Tech, big business, Wall Street, advertising, and the permanent state—these are all solid assets of Democrats. Even if Republicans win, and win, and win again, the Democrats are in a different weight and fight class. In their own heads and in reality, they are Leviathan.

One would think, looking at politics through this lens, that Democrats would calm down and ride the arc of history to eventual victory. The Republican frog is being slowly boiled. Why spike the heat and have them jump out? Just give it time. Instead, they are raising the heat to encourage the frog to jump.

Why would they do that? Because they can. They have the collective power to pull it off.

Parties and politicians rise and fall, but Washington has a permanent administrative class that defends its own interests, which appear completely aligned with Democrats and against Republicans.

Once upon a time, Republicans could think that the CIA and FBI, the Justice Department, and the military were balanced, even favorable to their interests. No longer. Once upon a time, the media and the Democratic Party were deeply suspicious of these institutions; now they are the cheerleaders and apologists for them and regard their personnel as trusted experts whose patriotism is beyond reproach.

Maybe Al Gore did create the Internet. Before tech was Big Tech, it presented itself as a rival to all the Davos hierarchies; now it is their tool. Business rivals work in concert with one another against those they find deplorable, looking to erase them in a world that otherwise catalogs everything.

All these institutions—and their tectonic, aggregated influence—are in Democrat’s hands. They and their commanding partners understand their asymmetrical superiority, and they think it’s in their short- and long-term interest to demonstrate it now.

Why? The biggest threat that progressive politics faces are the consequences of progressive legislation. Progressivism comes on the scene as a luxury good. The immorality of “poverty in the midst of plenty” is their platform to re-imagine society. But in the end, they always drive out prosperity and make poverty more pathological. Look at New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco—this is the logic of progressive government made real. It doesn’t poll well or perform well at the ballot box.

Democrats should take a hit this November—so they are flexing their muscles across the commanding-heights marketplace to solicit an advantageous response. Their prospects improve with political violence. Preceding Biden’s speech was the legally sanctioned raid of former President Donald Trump, who is widely expected to pursue one more presidential campaign. After the speech, the FBI legally served and netted all the president’s men, with no blowback at all from the mainstream press. Poke, poke.

Don’t take the bait. If you do, you’ll be playing into the trap set for you.

If you find yourself mad as hell and you don’t want to take it anymore—for the sake of what you hold dear, stand down. You should be suspicious of anyone calling for kinetic action. There is good reason to think that that person is an FBI agent. Big Tech and the FBI are watching, waiting, and enabling. They want a super-sized Ruby Ridge. Don’t give it to them.

An eyes-wide-open understanding of this asymmetrical distribution of power calls for a civil disobedience response—peaceful, nonviolent resistance. Let them show their illiberal nature. Don’t give them a diversion that distracts from the consequences of their horrible policies.

This is the path to short- and long-term Republican gains. For all that we have at stake, please commit to this path. We rise and fall together.


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

Weekend Read: Democracy and Liberty

Estimated Reading Time: 9 minutes

Editors’ Note: This article was originally penned in 1949.  Yet, it has amazing applicability today.  Democrats are making quite a plea right now, that they support “democracy”. It is the buzzword of the 2022 Mid-term election cycle. Adrian Fontes has a promotional sign saying to vote Democrat to “support democracy.” Without a real definition of what they mean, it is hard to know what they are talking about but it sure sounds good. But is it good and is it what you think democracy means? Does forcing you to agree with them on how you wash your dishes, your clothes, how much water to use in your toilet, how you heat your house, what kind of car you drive, what you can eat, and what your children are taught, and even what you think about sex, down even to the words you are permitted to use, sound like democracy to you? Does taking half of your income and tracking closely how you spend what is left sound like democracy to you? Does conducting elections where illegal aliens can vote, thus canceling your vote, sound like democracy to you? Does conducting elections where voter rolls are not clean, where the custody of ballots is not secure, and where the tally is not accurate, sound like proper procedures for democracy to function? Does sending the FBI after parents who dare to question school officials sound like democracy? Moreover, to hand over state and police power to determine the aforementioned life-controlling decisions to unelected judges and unelected bureaucrats, sound like democracy?  It should be obvious, in the “democracy” constructed by Democrats, most of the government decisions that govern minute parts of your life are enforced by a permanent bureaucracy: people who were never voted into office and who cannot be removed by voters from office. Beyond that, do humans have some unalienable rights determined by either their inherent nature or God, that cannot be taken from them, even if by majority vote? If the majority of 51% of your neighbors vote that you may not practice your religion, is that right? In short, are there limits to democracy that cannot transgress your personal liberty? It is clear that “democracy” is now a term to be used to club Republicans, even while the “democracy” constructed by Democrats, in reality, looks closer to rule by the unelected elites in a model of American socialism.


It is generally accepted that a government can enslave the citizens. Enough kings and emperors and generalissimos and führers have done so to establish that fact quite conclusively.

But the belief prevails that “It is impossible for liberty to be lost under a democratic form of government. Democracy assures that the will of the people shall prevail, and that is liberty. So long as democracy is preserved we can rest assured that liberty will be continued to the full.”

The more a person leans on an unsure support, the more certain he is to fall. Edmund Burke observed that people never give up their liberties except under some delusion. Probably no other belief is now so much a threat to liberty in the United States and in much of the rest of the world as the one that democracy, by itself alone, guarantees liberty.

Willis Ballinger’s study of eight great democracies of the past—ancient Athens, Rome, Venice, Florence, the First and Third Republics of France, Weimar Germany, and Italy—reveals how unreliable is this hope. He reports that liberty perished peacefully by vote of the people in five of the eight countries; that in two of them it was lost by violence; that in one of them a dictatorship was established through the buying of the legislature by a fraudulent clique. One who would understand the problem of liberty must understand why it is possible for liberty to be lost even in a democracy, and how to guard against it.

The “democratic” form of government refers to one of the mechanisms by which the scope of government—the things to be done by government—is to be determined and how its management is to be selected. This may be done directly by decisions of the people themselves (in a “direct” or “absolute” democracy), as when a direct vote is taken on an amendment; or it may be done by delegating the power of decision in these matters to certain “elected” representatives (in a “representative” democracy or “republic”). There is an important difference between these two types of democracy but that distinction is not the object of our present concern.

In both instances, the plan rests on widespread sovereignty at its base. Decisions as to either the issues or the delegations of power are rendered according to the majority—or some other predominant proportion—of the opinions expressed.

The features that distinguish a democracy from any other form of government have to do with the mechanical design of the government, as distinguished from the composition of the load of authority that it carries. This is the same sort of difference as that of the design of a truck as distinguished from its load, or the shape of a cup as distinguished from its contents. In speaking of liberty, what we are really concerned about is what government does—the nature of the load—rather than the style of wheels on which it rides, or some other feature in the design of the vehicle; we are concerned, for instance, with whether or not the government should control prices rather than the department which shall do the job or the name of the person who is to head the department.

If an act of government in any country violates the liberty of the people, it is of little importance who did it or how he came to have the power to do it; it is of little importance whether a dictator gained his power by accident of birth, by force, or by the vote of the people.

Liberty has been defined as the right of a person to do whatever he desires, according to his wisdom and conscience. It specifies the right to do what he desires, rather than the obligation to bow to the force of others in doing what they desire him to do; otherwise slavery becomes “liberty,” and true liberty is lost. It makes no difference whether the transgressor of liberty carries the title of slave master, or king, or führer, or president, or chairman of the county committee, or whatnot.

Historical enterprises that violate liberty are not restricted to instances of complete dictatorship, nor are they all political. The only difference between the aggressive bully under anarchy and the similar acts of the dictator is its formalization into governmental authority. That may make the acts of the dictator legal, in a technical sense, but it does not make them proper or wise in any other sense.

Small dictatorships precede large ones, and destroy liberty to whatever extent they exist. “Power,” which replaces liberty, is the irrevocable authority over others. One person’s opinions, decisions or actions become substituted for those of another, for a long or short time, for a wide or narrow scope. This is the material of which dictatorships, either large or small, are made. The means by which power is acquired, whether by the “democratic” process or by conquest, does not change its status as power. It is true that under persuasion or demonstration, one person may influence the ideas or actions of another, but, as mentioned before, if there is no irrevocable grant of authority—even temporarily or for one single instance—it is not power.

Suppose, as illustration of encroachment on liberty, that I desire to produce some wheat on my land, with which to feed my family. I shall have lost my liberty in that connection whenever I am prohibited from doing so. The loss of liberty would be the same whether the prohibition was by taking my land, or by prohibiting me from growing wheat on it, or by taking the wheat away from me after it was grown. Nor would it make any difference what official title happened to be attached to the person who enforced the edict, nor how he gained his throne of authority. Further, and most important to the subject now under discussion, it makes no difference whether or not some of my neighbors approved of that act, or how many of them approved of it. It makes no difference because, in any event, my liberty in this respect would be gone.

It should be clear from what has been said that the citizens of a democracy have in their hands the tools by which to enslave themselves.

This is a far cry from the common belief that democracy offers any definite and automatic protection of liberty. This illusion, that the democratic process is the same as liberty, is an ideal weapon for those few who may desire to destroy liberty and to replace it with some form of authoritarian society; innocent but ignorant persons are thereby made their dupes.

Under the spell of this illusion, liberty is most likely to be lost and its loss not discovered until too late. Liberty can easily be taken from the individual citizen, piece by piece and always more and more, as more and more persons under the spell of the same illusion join in the Pied Piper proceedings. Finally, all liberty is gone and can be recovered only by a bloody revolution.

Liberty does not mean the right to do anything that is the product of a democratic form of government. The right to vote, which is the sovereignty feature of democracy, assures only the liberty to participate in that process. It does not assure that everything done by that process shall automatically be in the interests of liberty. A populace may commit both political and economic suicide under a democracy.

Anyone who will defend his liberty must guard against the argument that access to the ballot, “by which people get whatever they want,” is liberty. It would be as logical to assert that liberty in the choice of a wife is assured to a person if he will put it to the vote of the community and accept their plurality decision, or that liberty in religion is assured if the state enforces participation in the one religion that receives the most votes in the nation.

There is no certainty whatever that liberty in a country with the democratic form of government is at a level higher than in a country having some other mechanism of government. There is no certainty that liberty will be maintained where the founders of a democracy may have hoped that it would be preserved.

The illusion that liberty is assured so long as a democratic government is preserved is well illustrated by an event recently reported in the newspaper. Items to illustrate the same point can be found in the newspapers daily. A news dispatch reports that an increase in rent ceilings has been “turned down” by “top administration officials.” The mere fact that some officials have acquired the power to deny this liberty to those who own this particular form of property is evidence of the fact that liberty in this respect is already gone; no process of selecting the officials who made the decision can make it not gone.

But let us pursue the matter further. It is argued that, since this act occurred in a “democracy,” the “will of the people” has prevailed and liberty has thereby been assured. Did you participate in this decision of “top officials”? Did anyone ever ask your opinion about whether this increase should be granted? Was the person who made the decision elected by the voters, or appointed by someone—perhaps by someone who was himself appointed by someone? And finally, coming to the elected official, did you vote for him or for the other fellow? Did you approve of his advisers, or were they perhaps defeated candidates for office of former years?

Actually all these considerations are beside the point anyhow, so far as liberty is concerned. Even if there had been approval all along the line, it is a violation of economic liberty and of liberty in general for me, a nonowner, to be able to control the rent charged by a neighbor to a third party.

Being able to review a decision or to request its review, under the democratic design of government, does not assure that liberty will be protected. Reinstatement of lost liberty can be requested and refused time and time again, without end. A slave, similarly, might ask his master for his freedom time and time again; he is not considered to be free by reason of the fact that he is allowed to ask for liberty.

Consider in detail all the acts of all the units of government for one day. How many among them were the proper functions of a liberal government as you would judge it; of those that were, in how many instances did you have any opportunity or right to participate in the decision; if you disagreed with the decision, in how many instances was there anything that you could do about it?

Strange indeed is this concept of “democratic liberty,” which has gained such widespread approval! Strange is a concept of “liberty” which allows you to be forced to pay the costs of promoting acts of which you disapprove or ideas with which you disagree, or which forces you to subsidize that which you consider to be slothfulness and negligence. Your “liberty” in the process is that you enjoy the right to be forced to bow to the dictates of others, against your wisdom and conscience!

Being forced to support things directly in conflict with one’s wisdom and conscience is the direct opposite of liberty, and should under no circumstances be allowed to parade under the esteemed banner of liberty. It should be labeled for what it is.

The people of the United States now live under a president who was elected to that office by the expressed preference of only one person out of six in the land; by only one person out of four who were eligible to vote; by less than half of those who voted. And many of those who voted for this candidate will certainly disapprove of many of his official acts. This illustrates how the democratic process is a far cry from guaranteeing the liberty of the people.

Professor F.A. “Baldy” Harper was the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education.


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

Borrower Sues to Stop Biden’s Unfair, Illegal Student Loan Bailout

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Probably the most common legal argument against the Biden administration’s student loan bailout plan is that the federal Department of Education simply doesn’t have the authority to accomplish it.

That’s a core argument in a new lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of an employee whose student debt is affected by the bailout plan.

Putting aside the issues of unfairness, the legal arguments have always been persuasive. The challenge has been to find a plaintiff who will suffer a legally recognized injury necessary to get into court.

The Pacific Legal Foundation has found a whole group of plaintiffs.

The organization’s client, Frank Garrison, has been paying down his education debt using Public Service Loan Forgiveness, a program that will forgive his remaining debt after he makes 120 qualifying payments. He’s about halfway through. He also is using the Income-Driven Repayment program, which caps his monthly payment based on his discretionary income.

Various problems with such federal programs and loan forgiveness, in general, have been described elsewhere, but here these programs mean that Garrison would have had his loan balance zeroed out after about 60 more months, with modest payments along the way.

Now, the loan bailout would automatically cancel $20,000 of Garrison’s debt instead, subjecting him to Indiana’s income tax, while doing nothing to improve his monthly payment due to his Income-Driven Repayment participation. He will owe about $1,000 to Indiana simply because the U.S. Department of Education is changing the rules.

Since several states treat loan forgiveness the same way, there are people across all of those states in the same boat. There are probably a lot of borrowers, among the 8 million qualifying Public Service Loan Forgiveness borrowers nationwide, who also are using the Income-Driven Repayment program in these states.

That’s enough for Garrison and the others to get into court. The key point of the HEROES Act is that borrowers “are not placed in a worse position financially” in relation to their student loans because of war or other national emergencies, but the Department of Education is causing, not remedying, economic harm to people like Garrison.

That means several additional arguments get into court, too:

  • The HEROES Act, on which the Department of Education is relying for the bailout, violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers, as well as the nondelegation doctrine. That means that Congress cannot give away its legislative power to the executive branch. The law purports to give the secretary of education the power to modify or amend the law regarding repayment requirements, subject only to the conditions in the rest of the HEROES Act, violating those core constitutional principles.
  • Even if the HEROES Act were constitutional, it does not give the Department of Education the power to cancel repayment of student loans in this case. For one thing, the HEROES Act requires that the cancellation be “necessary” and targeted to economic harm that is “a direct result of a … national emergency.” But it’s not. Student loan borrowers are not, the plaintiff quite reasonably claims (quoting the law), “directly ‘affected individuals’ who ‘suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency.’” And mass cancellation of debts is “hardly ‘necessary’ to mitigate the economic harms of the pandemic.”
  • The Department of Education’s sweeping decision includes many people who are not any worse off because of the pandemic (and probably a lot who are better off, depending what companies they work for). And for those who are worse off today than when the pandemic emergency was declared years ago, they may not be any worse off “relative to their federal student loans” or due in any way to the pandemic in the first place.
  • Even if the HEROES Act were not only constitutional but also able to sweep in such a variety of borrowers, the cancellation is so economically and politically significant that it violates the “major questions doctrine.” The U.S. Supreme Court has been using this doctrine recently in, for example, West Virginia v. EPA, which stopped the Environmental Protection Agency from (improperly) discovering a huge regulatory power in an ancillary part of environmental law.

The Department of Education is making the same error here.

The major questions doctrine,” the plaintiff notes, “requires a clear authorization by Congress of such an economically and politically significant action, which is lacking here. … Without a valid source of authority, the Secretary [of Education] ‘literally has no power to act’” (quoting a different case).

Congress gave no clue that hundreds of billions of dollars in a massive loan bailout was in the HEROES Act, because it isn’t.

Overall, the HEROES Act was never meant for massive cancellation of the obligation to pay back student loans. Furthermore, the bailout plan’s income cutoffs, its relief amounts unconnected to the pandemic emergency, and its arbitrary provision to double the relief amount if the borrower had ever received a Pell Grant (even decades ago), as I have written elsewhere, further show the Department of Education’s abuse of power—if it was properly delegated any such power in the first place.


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

Blake Masters: Democrat Mark Kelly’s Voting Record Will Expose Him to Independents

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

Trump-endorsed Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters said Democrat Sen. Mark Kelly’s (D-AZ) voting record will expose him to independents.

Kelly’s voting record is a radical one despite the candidate trying to appear moderate. He has backed President Joe Biden’s legislative initiatives 94 percent of the time.

Regarding the open southern border, Kelly has voted in 2021 three times to defund border wall construction. He has also voted against Title 42 three times and voted against hiring 18,000 Border Patrol agents before any new IRS agents are hired.

“When independents learn about Mark Kelly’s voting record — he pretends to be independent but actually he votes in lockstep for Joe Biden’s failed agenda — well, that’s pretty much all they need to know to come over to our side and vote Republican for a change,” Masters told KTAR on Wednesday

“So, I think we’re going to continue to peel away, and ultimately I think most independents will break our way in November,” he added.

Independent voters, who amount to 1.4 million in Arizona, make up about one-third of Arizona’s population. According to a recent Emerson College poll, independents are siding  with Kelly over Masters by nine points…..


Continue reading this article at Breitbart.


EXCLUSIVE: Trump-Endorsed Arizona Attorney General Nominee And Former Prosecutor Abe Hamadeh HAMMERS Woke Anti-Police Radical Kris Mayes During AG Candidate Forum (VIDEO)

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Editors’ Note: As the 2022 midterm election approaches (November 8th), mail-in ballots are to be mailed out on October 12th. The Prickly Pear asks all readers and all Arizonans two simple questions: Is Arizona to be a state like California where there is widespread crime, homelessness, defunding of police and rapid deterioration of the quality of life for hard-working citizens as its “brand”? Is Arizona a state where fundamental liberties, safe streets, quality, civic minded education for our children and a thriving economy with opportunity for all is our “brand”? 
The Democrat party, its policies and certainly its 2022 candidates like Katie Hobbs, Adrian Fontes, Mark Kelly and Kris Mayes answer the first question in the affirmative, often trying to hide the truth of their radical progressive ideology. The Prickly Pear recently published the reasons to support all the Republican candidates on your ballot as a yes answer to the second question above. Kari Lake as Governor, Blake Masters as U.S. Senator, Mark Finchem as Secretary of State and Abe Hamadeh as Attorney General will all deliver an affirmative answer and fight to ensure we keep Arizona the state it is and can be rather than a slide into woke, leftist chaos and a place liberty loving citizens and families escape from. 


Trump-Endorsed Arizona Attorney General Nominee Abe Hamadeh shredded his opponent, radical pro-defund the police leftist Kris Mayes, during the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s Attorney General Candidate Forum on Thursday, September 15.

“Stacey Champion is a kook, Kris… She has said all law enforcement officers equals killing black people, and I’ve not heard you denounce that,” Abe exclaimed while speaking about the Attorney General’s duty to support law enforcement and enforce Law and Order in Arizona.

Abe later told TGP, “Kris Mayes claims she does not support ‘Defund The Police’ but has surrounded herself with consultants and groups that have publicly supported this dangerous policy. Her media consultant has said vile things on social media about our police, and she has done nothing to disavow or detach herself from these groups and has yet to fire her consultant or rescind any endorsements — this is why law enforcement agencies from around the state overwhelmingly support Abe Hamedeh for Attorney General.” 

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that liberal Kris Mayes, running for the Chief Law Enforcement Official in the State, does not even support law enforcement. Her campaign PR consultant, Stacey Champion, actually hates the police and has tweeted, “We live in a country where ‘law enforcement’ = killing black folks and arresting women who need to buy tampons.”

“Killing black folks and arresting women who need to buy tampons.” What the hell does that even mean?

Stacey Champion has also been an outspoken advocate for legalizing homeless street camping and for climate action with “an equity lens” while promoting her 2030 agenda.

These fear-mongering leftists don’t care about the truth or the law.

We recently reported that an Arizona Judge has ruled that the State can enforce its ban on abortion following the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade.

Abortion is now illegal in the State, and anybody can still buy tampons. And pro-choice women can also choose to abstain from sex or use legal contraceptives like condoms and birth control.

However, During the forum, Kris Mayes promised not to enforce any current Arizona abortion laws if she is elected.….


Continue reading this article at The Gateway Pundit.

Free Enterprise Club Announces Its Ballot Measure Endorsements for the November 2022 Election

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

This November, Arizonans will decide on 10 ballot measures. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club is endorsing four of these measures: Propositions 128, 129, 132, and 309. Each of these are necessary and critical to make common sense election integrity reforms and protect Arizonans from the influence of out-of-state special interests that exploit the initiative process to put bad policy on our ballots. We encourage Arizonans to vote YES.

On the other hand, Propositions 209, 211, 308, and 310 include tax hikes, programs for government to dox and harass private individuals for donating to causes they believe in, exacerbating the invasion at our border, and increasing inflation. These measures will harm Arizona families and businesses, and we encourage voters to vote NO.

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club endorses and asks Arizonans to vote YES on the following measures:

Prop 128 (VOTE YES) allows the legislature to amend ballot measures that the Arizona or U.S. Supreme Court determine contain unconstitutional or illegal language. Out-of-state special interests flood Arizona with millions of dollars to knowingly put unconstitutional measures on our ballots. Prop 128 ensures we aren’t stuck with their broken laws. Learn more here.

Prop 129 (VOTE YES) requires ballot initiatives to pertain to a single subject, the same requirement for bills passed in the legislature to protect our ballots against radical, sprawling initiatives imported from other states to confuse and logroll voters. Learn more here.

Prop 132 (VOTE YES) requires any new tax or tax increase on the ballot to receive at least 60% of the vote to pass. Currently, a tax increase at the legislature requires support from a 2/3 majority of members to be enacted, but only a simple majority of the electorate on the ballot. Prop 132 protects taxpayers from a small majority raising taxes on the rest, crushing our economy. Learn more here.

Prop 309 (VOTE YES) creates universal Voter ID requirements ensuring no matter when, where, or how we vote, ID is required. It requires all in-person voters to show valid, government-issued photo ID, creates ID requirements for voting by mail, and waives the fee for a government ID for those who need it for voting. Learn more here.

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club opposes and asks Arizonans to vote NO on the following measures:

Prop 308 (VOTE NO) allows individuals residing in Arizona illegally to receive taxpayer subsidized tuition at our universities. Sold as providing in-state tuition to “DREAMERs” who have been here since they were young children, the actual language of the measure is much broader and far reaching, only requiring the person to have been in Arizona illegally for two years and graduate from an Arizona high school to receive taxpayer subsidized tuition.

Prop 310 (VOTE NO) increases the statewide sales tax by 0.1%, resulting in a nearly $200 million tax hike to fund fire districts statewide. Many of these fire districts have mismanaged their budgets, and wastefully and recklessly spent tax money in the past. Prop 310 is not the solution, as it increases taxes on all Arizonans to subsidize a few and does not include reforms to ensure responsible and accountable use of taxpayer money in the future. Learn more here.

Prop 209 (VOTE NO) excuses people from having to pay their debt, which will increase inflation, make it harder to access credit, and shift the burden to taxpayers who do pay their bills. Funded entirely by California unions, it is sold as impacting only medical debt, but the language of the initiative actually shields all kinds of debt, not just medical. Learn more here.

Prop 211 (VOTE NO) requires private organizations to disclose donors to the government if they spend more than a certain amount in any given election, violating the constitutional right to privacy and association so that government can target, harass, and dox their political opponents. Unsurprisingly, the measure exempts Big Tech, the media, and labor unions from these same disclosure regulations. Learn more here.

FBI, Justice Department Twist Federal Law to Arrest, Charge Pro-Life Activist

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

In an early morning raid Friday in Kintnersville, Pennsylvania, about two dozen FBI agents with weapons drawn pounded on the door of Mark Houck’s home, where he lives with his wife and seven children.

The FBI agents arrested Houck based on a federal indictment. Sounds serious, right? Is Houck a domestic terrorist, an American jihadist, a dangerous militia member, a violent felon, or someone with a prior history of violence toward law enforcement who would require such an overwhelming show of force?

Not even close.

Houck is a pro-life activist and president of The King’s Men, a Catholic ministry. He has no prior criminal record. He was arrested Friday morning for an alleged violation of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, known as the FACE Act.

Again, sounds potentially serious. But given the Obama-Biden administration’s prior abuse of the FACE Act, as well as what we know already about the facts, we have serious reasons to doubt that this is a legitimate case and prudent use of federal law enforcement resources. More likely, it is a politically motivated abuse of federal law by both the FBI and the Justice Department. 

It is not a coincidence, we suspect, that this takedown of someone who, at best, committed a misdemeanor assault came almost exactly three months after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overruled Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand in America. The FBI’s raid of Houck’s home was designed to send a warning to pro-life activists engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment.

The FACE Act (18 U.S.C. § 248) forbids physically obstructing, injuring, intimidating, or interfering with anyone “obtaining or providing reproductive health services.” But Congress specified that the FACE Act doesn’t “prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibitions by the First Amendment to the Constitution,” including the “free speech or free exercise clauses,” occurring “outside a facility.”  

Houck apparently would regularly drive two hours from his home to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Philadelphia to pray and speak outside the facility, often taking his 12-year-old son with him.

The federal indictment claims that almost a year ago, Houck “verbally confronted” and “shoved” an escort for an abortion patient “to the ground” and “intentionally injured, intimidated and interfered” with the escort.

What the indictment fails to mention, say Houck’s wife and a family spokesman, is that on multiple occasions this pro-abortion escort said “crude … inappropriate and disgusting things” to the Houcks’ son, such as “your dad’s a fag” and other vulgar slurs.

Houck kept telling the escort to stop harassing his son, they say, but the escort refused to stop and when the foul-mouthed vulgarian got too close to his son, Houck protected him by shoving the escort away.

The escort fell down, but, according to Houck’s family, the only injury he suffered required “a Band-Aid on his finger.”

The incident occurred Oct. 21, 2021. The assault claim against Houck is so weak that not only did Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, a Soros-backed rogue prosecutor, refuse to file any misdemeanor charges against Houck, but, the family says, a civil lawsuit filed by the escort was thrown out of court.

Now, almost a year later, the FBI shows up at Houck’s home in force and the Justice Department charges him with two felonies for an injury that required a Band-Aid. His conviction could result, according to the Justice Department, in a maximum penalty of “11 years in prison, three years of supervised release and fines of up to $350,000.”

No doubt, Houck’s defense attorney will explore any and all defenses, starting with whether the man shoved by Houck even falls within the “obtaining or providing” requirement of the federal statute. It also may be a clear case of self-defense, since Houck apparently was defending his 12-year-old son from an adult who was harassing and intimidating a minor.

The fact is that the Justice Department, under Democratic administrations, has a history of misusing the FACE Act to go after abortion opponents.

In 2012, for example, a federal judge in Florida tossed out a FACE Act indictment against Mary Susan Pine, a  pro-life activist who had been conducting peaceful sidewalk counseling outside an abortion clinic for many years. The judge excoriated the Justice Department for the behavior of its lawyers, saying that the indictment seemed to be the “product of a concerted effort between the government and the [abortion clinic] … to quell Ms. Pine’s activities” rather than to enforce the statute.

The timing of this indictment of Houck also is suspect and calls into question the motive behind the Justice Department’s move. If this situation played out the way the Justice Department claims, even viewed in the light most favorable to the government this was, at best, two minor incidents of misdemeanor assault.

It’s significant that local authorities, including the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, decided not to file charges against Houck. It means that, for whatever reason, they didn’t even think Houck’s conduct warranted a misdemeanor assault charge, much less the two felony charges that he now faces.

Most likely, the local authorities didn’t file charges because, upon examining the facts, it was, at best, a case of “mutual combat” in which two adults got out of hand and ended up in a minor scuffle. In such cases, typically neither party is charged, and the case goes away. 

If this was such an important violation of the FACE Act, what took the Justice Department 337 days to indict Houck? This is the simplest of simple, factual cases. Houck either pushed the escort twice, unprovoked, or he didn’t.

Perhaps the more important number is 91. That’s how many days elapsed between the day the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs and Houck’s indictment. Or maybe it’s 49—the number of days between Houck’s indictment and the mid-term elections.

And why did the Justice Department decide to send armed FBI agents to Houck’s house in a show of force? Houck has no criminal record, is a man of faith, and is the father of seven children. He is no threat whatsoever.

Contrast this prosecution with the fact that vandals physically have attacked and damaged roughly 70 pro-life pregnancy centers, which also are protected under the FACE Act’s definition of a facility that “provides reproductive health services.”

So why hasn’t the Justice Department filed a single FACE Act indictment against anyone for those crimes?

Clearly, the leadership of the FBI and the Justice Department should be asked these and other important questions surrounding this case, as well as their lack of action against real threats.


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

House GOP: Venezuela Deliberately Releasing Violent Criminals, Sending Them to U.S. Border

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

A coalition of House Republicans led by U.S. Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, is “demanding answers about Venezuela releasing violent prisoners early and pushing them to join caravans heading towards our southern border” in a letter sent to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

“We need transparency and accountability from this administration,” Nehls tweeted when publishing a letter he and his colleagues sent late last week.

In their letter, the group expressed “serious concern” about a recent DHS intelligence report “received by Border Patrol that instructs agents to look for violent criminals from Venezuela among the migrant caravans heading towards the U.S.-Mexico border.

“It has been widely reported that the murderous narco-terrorist Maduro regime in Venezuela is deliberately releasing violent prisoners early, including inmates convicted of ‘murder, rape, and extortion,’ and pushing them to join caravans heading to the United States. Some of the released prisoners have already been spotted within migrant caravans traveling from Tapachula, Mexico, toward our southern border as recently as July of this year, meaning they could already be in our interior.”

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data, between October 2021 and July 2022, more than 130,000 Venezuelans were encountered illegally entering the U.S. across the southern border.

“DHS confirms that Venezuela empties prisons and sends violent criminals to our southern border,” Nehls previously argued. “President [Donald] Trump warned us about this years ago.”

Trump reiterated his claims last June at an event in the Rio Grande Valley with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. He said federal security officials in his administration thwarted drug dealers and smugglers and halted much illegal activity across the border as a result of deals he made with Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

As a result of these agreements, criminals from these countries weren’t allowed to enter the U.S. or these countries would stop receiving financial aid from the U.S. government.

Under the Obama administration, when MS13 gang members and other criminal foreign nationals were deported, their home countries wouldn’t take them back, Trump said.

“For years, these countries wouldn’t take them back,” Trump said, which is one reason why he halted financial aid to these countries. Then he got calls from their leaders, he said, who told him, “Sir, you’re not paying us anymore.’ And I said, ‘That’s right.’

“And we were bringing them in by the thousands getting them out. And now they’re sending them back because what they are doing is they are opening their prisons and prisoners, murderers, human traffickers, all of these people, drug dealers, they’re coming in through the caravans, not everybody, but are coming in illegally,” he added.

The members of Congress asked Mayorkas to provide information about what precautions DHS was taking to prevent criminals from Venezuela from entering the U.S., if DHS was aware of the current location or final destination of released prisoners, how many Venezuelan nationals have already entered the U.S. at the southern border since President Joe Biden took office and how many of them have criminal records.

The letter comes after Mayorkas in July extended by 18 months Temporary Protected Status for eligible Venezuelans.

He said doing so was “one of many ways the Biden administration is providing humanitarian support to Venezuelans at home and abroad, together with our regional partners. We will continue to work with our international partners to address the challenges of regional migration while ensuring our borders remain secure.”

The 18-month TPS extension became effective Sep. 10 and lasts through March 10, 2024. Only beneficiaries under Venezuela’s existing designation, and who were already residing in the U.S. as of March 8, 2021, are eligible to re-register for TPS under the extension. Venezuelans who arrived in the U.S. after March 8, 2021, are not eligible for TPS. Approximately 343,000 individuals are estimated to be eligible for TPS under the existing designation of Venezuela, DHS says.


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