“I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.”
This is the first article of the Code of Conduct for the U.S. Armed Forces, which govern how servicemembers should act during combat or in the event of capture. While every U.S. servicemember is trained on the Code, very few make its ultimate sacrifice.
The brave men and women we honor today made that sacrifice so that the rest of us can pursue our “way of life.” So that we may exercise our inherent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So that today we can play outside with our children, barbeque with our friends, travel to a new places, and fully live this beautiful, American life.
Please join us in remembering those heroes who have fallen for the cause of liberty.
Jon Riches is a Commander in the United States Navy Reserve.
Forcing someone to pay for another person or group’s political speech is wrong, and the First Amendment is supposed to protect Americans against that kind of coercion. That’s why this week we asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether states can force attorneys to pay for a bar association’s political speech just so they can practice their profession.
In 30 states, attorneys must join and pay dues to a state bar association to be allowed to practice law. Bar associations use those dues to advocate for and against legislation and public policies, and to publish other political and ideological speech. Our clients, Oregon attorneys Daniel Crowe and Lawrence Peterson, have been forced to pay dues to the Oregon State Bar —and forced to pay for its political speech.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Crowe and Peterson’s free speech challenge to Oregon’s law that forces lawyers to pay bar association dues. Now, the Goldwater Institute is asking the Supreme Court to take up the case and end mandatory bar association fees, just as it recently ended mandatory public-sector union fees, which violated government workers’ rights for the same reasons, in Janus v. AFSCME.
Goldwater senior attorney Jacob Huebert writes more about the case on In Defense of Liberty here.
In a growing number of schools, there’s a divisive, politically charged curriculum being pushed on unsuspecting students—one that’s teaching them to turn their back on America’s founding ideals. And many parents have no practical way to find out what their kids are learning.
But fortunately, as Goldwater Institute Director of Education Policy Matt Beienburg explained on Newsmax’s “The National Report” this week, we’re working to shine a light on schools so parents know just what’s going on.
“A lot of people from the teachers’ unions now all the way up to the White House are pushing explicitly for politically charged, racially divisive content to go into our K-12 classrooms,” Beienburg said. For this very reason, the Goldwater Institute is leading an effort to make our schools more transparent when it comes to their curriculum so that parents know what is being taught in the classrooms and so they can have true choice in education. You can watch Beienburg’s appearance on Newsmax here, and you can read more about Goldwater’s plan to bring that transparency to K-12 schools here.