The adage goes that “all politics are local”. The current pandemic and ongoing world events have never proven this axiom more true than today. Because of Covid 19, both Australia and New Zealand have had their entire legal framework experience a “hostile takeover” of the state by their federal government. Citizens of both nations have become slaves to decisions made by their governments with respect to their health, bodily autonomy, and the very right to live and move about freely within their communities.
Those same coordinated events are now being set up to take effect in the US, and that has already become true for several counties in Arizona.
In August of 2021, it was brought to our attention that an Intergovernmental Agency Agreement (IGA) had been proposed in a very rural area of Arizona, namely Cochise County. Mr. Tom Crosby, of the Cochise County, AZ, Board of Supervisors, provided details that draconian and ethically questionable “mitigation” efforts for COVID-19, outlined in the Cochise County IGA, mirror those currently underway in Australia and New Zealand.
Upon review of the Cochise County IGA, one must ask how could such actions even be considered, much less justified in our nation for a virus with a less than 1% fatality rate? The answer is simple–money and lots of it. The IGAs in Arizona (Cochise, Pinal and other counties) awarded hundreds of millions of grant dollars to “mitigate” the China virus as detailed in the IGA (see page 24 and figure below).
This is the budget proposed and posted via the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), USA Spending.gov website. A whopping $862.6M for Arizona.
Cochise County alone is being allotted approximately $3.17M. That’s a lot of money for a rural county in Arizona, more than they could easily raise through typical means. The county has several big projects it would like to undertake including a brand new Cochise County Justice Center mega-complex, complete with a new courthouse, jail, offices and company vehicles.
Superficially the intent seems reasonable, however; the detailed “requirements,” levied by the Federal Government, beg a host of questions. Upon review of the IGA the unspoken question of what is “bought” by so much money is answered. Another adage, “follow the money,” and you will see that the price for so much money is core freedoms.
A closer look at the IGA documents essentially tells us that the Office of Health Equity is tasked with addressing health disparities and advancing health equity. The Arizona Health Improvement Plan (AZHIP, Page 29) suggests a disproportionate risk of COVID-19, especially in rural, medically underserved, and/or racial-ethnic minority groups.
Specifically, the concerns are higher risk of exposure, infection, hospitalization, and mortality, coupled with known disproportionate rates of chronic diseases are attributed to COVID-19. The document lists class and race as a key part of its reason for implementation.
Page 17, Section 1.4 of the IGA provides the grant details, that are awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), vis-a-vis, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, 2020 (the “CARES Act”) (P.L. 116-136), Paycheck Protection Program, Health Care Enhancement Act (P.L. 116-139), the Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplement Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260) and/or the American Rescue Plan of 2021 (P.L. 117-2).
The alarming takeaway from the IGA document is that the recipient of the grant is required to comply with any existing or FUTURE requirements outlined by the CDC. This will encompass any and ALL future guidance provided from the HHS Secretary:
“[Recipient] agrees to 1) comply with existing and/or future directives and guidance from the Secretary regarding control of the spread of COVID-19; 2) in consultation and coordination with HHS, provide, commensurate with the condition of the individual, COVID-19 patient care regardless of the individual’s home jurisdiction and/or appropriate public health measures (e.g., social distancing, home isolation); and 3) assist the United States Government in the implementation and enforcement of Federal orders related to quarantine and isolation” (Intergovernmental Agreement CTR05990, 17).“
We know from the content of the IGA Contract that the County is, at a minimum, agreeing, in advance, to comply with all existing and future guidance from the Secretary of HHS. The contract essentially hands complete control of the county to the Federal Government and under the direct oversight of the HHS Secretary. This contract is a complete and total circumvention of the State Constitution and legislature.
Furthermore, the IGA specifies cooperation with the Federal Government to assist the United States Government in the implementation and enforcement of Federal orders related to quarantine and isolation, and to report to the HHS Secretary results of COVID tests, and data collections including but not limited to COVID-19. The CDC will “specify in further guidance and directives what is encompassed by this requirement.” In other words, this is an open-ended contract. It binds the County to adhere to whatever directives the CDC or HHS Secretary might make in the future.
Compounding the issue is an Executive Order (EO) signed by Governor Doug Ducey in October of 2021 and again in December. The Enhanced Surveillance Advisory – Monitoring and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19, Executive Order: 2021-21), essentially empowers the Federal Government to execute these IGA Contracts once the Governor declares a state of emergency in conjunction with the Federal Government.
In effect, at any moment, the Federal Government can sweep in and execute a complete takeover of the entire state of Arizona with the State Legislature and local governments powerless to stop them. This EO along with the County IGA Documents mirrors the Federal CDC Guidance for the “shielding approach” (ie. quarantine camps) as detailed in the CDC “Master Plan“.
The interagency agreement and the Governors’s EO are compelling. The two documents argue decisively that part, if not all, of Arizona has been “bought and paid for” by the Federal Government. Even if the purpose of the IGAs were free from any nefarious intent, the circumvention of the State Legislature to execute these contracts is quite possibly unconstitutional. No State Legislature had a voice in the agreements, nor will they in their execution. The Federal Government, working directly with County Supervisors, without State Legislative input, and in conjunction with the Governor unilaterally invoking questionable Executive Orders may now control the very freedoms of the people.
What is particularly startling is other counties, including Maricopa and Pinal, have entered into these same types of agreements.
At a minimum, the identified counties have possibly agreed to an open-ended contract with the Federal Government that clearly was entered into without State Representatives sharing knowledge. This agreement binds the people of Arizona unequally (select groups by ethnicity, location, and class). Such groupings are clearly unconstitutional as it fails to provide “equal protection” and as stated earlier, was conducted without legislative participation. It appears, that the ultimate intent of the contract is to award compliance vs. mitigating maladies. Such is evidenced given funds are not allocated based upon “cure rate,” but on race, location, and class.
Our Nation is founded upon the principle of freedom at every level and not one of obedience. Treating the people of Arizona as animals to be dealt with as such is an anathema to our Founding documents, our way of life, and the very reason we broke from England. Not only are the “agreements” and EO unconstitutional, but they are also demeaning to all parties subject to the impact of the agreement. Likely the State of Arizona is not an isolated case in this effort by the Federal Government.
And so, we now come to the question for all readers.
If this “activity” has occurred in Arizona, how many other States and counties have been co-opted by a “river” of money to do the same? Is this a money versus freedom effort? Yes. “All politics are local,” therefore how many additional local county or city officials signed agreements like this in hopes of filling budget shortfalls or for pet projects at the expense of the God-given freedoms of United States citizens?
As Retired General Flynn accurately states: “Local action equals National Impact”.
Our government is only “representative” of the people if we insist that they are!