APRIL 13, 2026

The Wall That Heals Comes to Surprise: A Moving Tribute to Sacrifice

This past Saturday morning, I had the opportunity to visit The Wall That Heals as it made its stop here in Surprise. It is something I will not soon forget.

We often hear the number—over 58,000 Americans who lost their lives in the Vietnam War. But standing in front of the wall, seeing name after name etched into its surface, brings a completely different level of understanding. It is no longer just a number. It is personal. It is real.

Even though this is only a portion of the full memorial that travels from city to city, the impact is overwhelming. The sheer volume of names, lined up with precision and respect, serves as a powerful reminder of the cost of freedom. Each name represents a life, a family, a story.

What struck me just as much as the wall itself were the people gathered around it. Many were wearing Vietnam veteran hats and shirts—quietly identifying themselves as part of that chapter in our nation’s history. I watched as visitors spoke with one another, sharing experiences,

memories, and, in some cases, grief that still lingers decades later.

There was a sense of reverence in the air. Conversations were softer. Movements were slower. People weren’t just observing—they were reflecting.

It reminded me how important it is that we never lose sight of the human cost behind the freedoms we enjoy every day.

I am deeply grateful to all who have served and those who continue to serve in our military. Their sacrifices—and the sacrifices of their families—should never be taken for granted.

As I left, one thought stayed with me: may we always remember, may we always be thankful, and may we keep them all in our prayers.

Canada’s Gun Confiscation Program Raises Questions About Government Power and Public Compliance

For years, gun control advocates in the United States have reassured citizens with a consistent message: “No one is coming for your guns.” Yet developments in Canada are prompting renewed debate about that claim. North of the border, the Canadian government is actively moving forward with a sweeping firearm prohibition and mandatory buyback program—one that critics argue amounts to confiscation.

The policy traces back to 2020, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a ban on more than 1,500 models of firearms following a mass shooting in Nova Scotia. Since then, the list has expanded to over 2,500 types of firearms, including AR-15-style rifles, commonly referred to as Modern Sporting Rifles, as well as a wide range of other firearms used for hunting and sport shooting.

Under the current framework, Canadian gun owners who possess newly prohibited firearms have been required to declare and register them as part of a federal “buyback” program. A key compliance deadline passed on March 31, 2026, and early reports indicate participation has been extremely low—around 2.5 percent of affected firearms.

Those who choose not to participate face limited options. They can deactivate their firearms at their own expense, surrender them to law enforcement without compensation, or export them if they are able to obtain the necessary permits. The federal government has also made clear that after the current amnesty period—set to expire on October 30, 2026—non-compliance could carry legal consequences.

At a recent parliamentary hearing, Conservative Member of Parliament Dane Lloyd pressed Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree on how the government plans to respond to widespread non-compliance. The minister confirmed that law enforcement agencies, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, would be prepared to carry out collection efforts in the months following the deadline.

This approach has sparked concerns not only among firearm owners but also within law enforcement circles. Canada is already facing reported staffing shortages among police agencies, and critics question whether dedicating additional resources to firearm collection is the most effective use of limited manpower—especially amid ongoing concerns about crime.

The scale of the program is also drawing scrutiny. Estimates suggest that between 500,000 and 2 million firearms could be affected. However, funding currently allocated for compensation appears to cover only a fraction of that total. Early phases of the program have seen limited participation, with relatively small numbers of firearms collected compared to the projected scope.

Cost is another major concern. A previous Canadian long-gun registry initiative, initially projected to cost a few million dollars, ultimately ballooned into a multi-billion-dollar program before being scrapped. Critics warn that the current effort could follow a similar trajectory, with estimates already reaching into the billions.

Supporters of the policy argue that removing certain types of firearms from circulation enhances public safety, particularly those they describe as “assault-style” weapons not suited for hunting or recreational use. However, opponents counter that the policy disproportionately impacts law-abiding citizens while doing little to address criminal activity.

The Canadian approach highlights a broader debate about the role of government, individual rights, and public safety. Unlike the United States, Canada does not have a constitutional equivalent to the Second Amendment, which shapes how firearm policies are developed and enforced.

As the October 2026 amnesty deadline approaches, the next phase of Canada’s program will likely become clearer. What remains certain is that the issue continues to generate significant debate—not only in Canada, but also among observers in the United States who are watching closely.

Whether viewed as a necessary public safety measure or an overreach of government authority, Canada’s firearm policy is a real-world example of how gun laws can evolve—and how citizens respond when they do.

Gun owners in the United States are watching closely—because while the Constitution offers protection, the question remains: if a liberal administration returns to the White House, will policies like this truly stay off the table?

Project Baccara Moves Forward: A Major Step for the West Valley

Last week, Project Baccara—the proposed data center and on-site power generation facility planned for county land between Surprise, Glendale, and Luke Air Force Base—received a unanimous green light from the Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission. This marks a significant milestone for the project, with the next step heading to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on May 6th.

As expected with any large-scale development, the project has drawn both support and opposition. A group of nearby residents has voiced strong concerns, particularly regarding air quality, noise, and water usage. These are important issues that deserve thoughtful consideration, and it is clear the community is engaged and paying attention.

However, it is also important to understand the broader context. The land designated for Project Baccara sits within the Luke Air Force Base flight contour and has been zoned for industrial use for decades. In fact, due to its proximity to Luke, residential development is not an option in this area. The surrounding region is already trending industrial, making this type of project consistent with long-standing planning and land-use decisions.

There is also a growing trend of skepticism toward data centers. While concerns are understandable, the reality is that data centers are essential infrastructure in today’s world. From national security and advancements in artificial intelligence to everyday conveniences like online searches, banking, and communication—data centers power it all. Even critical services such as medical record sharing between doctors, hospitals, and emergency responders depend on this technology.

Project Baccara also brings innovative solutions to the table. One of the most notable is its partnership with a local brewery to utilize reclaimed water, significantly reducing demand on the region’s water supply. Even without this approach, the project is expected to use less water than a typical residential subdivision—though again, housing is not a viable option for this site due to its location near Luke.

In addition, Baccara’s on-site power generation will contribute energy to the wholesale market, helping meet the growing demand in the West Valley without adding costs to ratepayers. At a time when energy reliability is increasingly important, this is a meaningful benefit.

At its core, Project Baccara represents a convergence of smart land use, economic development, and infrastructure investment. While no project is without its challenges, this one aligns with the realities of the area and the needs of a growing region.

As the Board of Supervisors prepares to make its decision, the conversation will undoubtedly continue. But based on the facts, Project Baccara stands out as a forward-looking opportunity—and a win-win for the West Valley.

BNSF moving Hazardous Materials: A Quiet but Serious Risk

Freight rail is one of the primary methods for transporting hazardous materials across the United States. These can include:

• Industrial chemicals
• Flammable liquids
• Toxic substances

While strict regulations exist on paper, real-world conditions are far less reassuring. Trains can and do leak. Spills happen. And when they do, cleanup is not always immediate—or thorough.

For communities near rail lines or intermodal facilities, this raises a critical question:

👉 What happens when something goes wrong close to home?

Industrial Exposure: Workers Protected—Rail Crews Aren’t

At industrial facilities where these chemicals originate, safety protocols are clear:

• Workers wear protective gear
• Employees are issued sensor badges to monitor exposure levels
• Strict handling procedures are enforced

But once those same materials are loaded onto railcars, the safety standard appears to change.

According to concerns shared by a former BNSF conductor, Dominick Reale of Arizona, rail employees often travel the same routes and interact with the same hazardous cargo—without equivalent protections.

• No protective suits.
• No exposure-monitoring badges.
• No consistent safeguards against repeated chemical exposure.

This raises serious concerns about long-term health risks for rail workers, who may be unknowingly exposed to dangerous vapors and substances over time.

A System with Limited Accountability

Labor protections in the rail industry are uniquely constrained. Unlike many other sectors, railroad workers cannot strike without congressional approval. This dramatically limits the bargaining power of unions trying to push for stronger safety standards.

Efforts to improve conditions have been made in the past—but without leverage, meaningful change is difficult to achieve.

A Firsthand Warning from Inside the Industry

Former BNSF conductor Dominick Reale shared his concerns after leaving the company. According to Reale, safety often takes a backseat to logistics.

Delivering freight on time is the priority—no matter the cost, and no matter what corners must be cut.

Reale cited a lack of concern for employee well-being as one of the reasons he chose to leave the railroad industry altogether.

His perspective offers a rare glimpse behind the curtain—and raises an uncomfortable question:

👉 If workers inside the system don’t feel protected, what does that mean for the communities around it?

Why This Matters for Wittmann

The proposed BNSF project would dramatically increase rail traffic and industrial activity in a rural area not currently equipped for that level of risk.

This isn’t just about trains. It’s about:

• Hazardous materials moving through residential areas
• Limited emergency response infrastructure
• Worker safety concerns that could translate into broader public risk

The Bottom Line

Rail is essential to our economy. But efficiency should never come at the expense of safety—not for workers, and not for communities.

As discussions about BNSF’s expansion continue, one thing is clear:

👉 Transparency, accountability, and safety must come first.

Because when hazardous materials are involved, the cost of cutting corners is simply too high.

2026: The Year of Election Challenges in Arizona



If there’s one defining theme of the 2026 election cycle in Arizona, it’s this: challenges everywhere. From the Governor’s race all the way down to small-town City Council contests, candidates are not just competing for votes—they’re fighting for a place on the ballot itself.

At the top of the ticket, a political battle is unfolding within the No Labels Party. Gubernatorial candidate Teri Ann Hourihan has filed a formal challenge against her primary opponent, Hugh Lytle, arguing that he does not have enough valid signatures to qualify. This comes on the heels of a court ruling that invalidated the party’s previous name, the Arizona Independent Party, adding yet another layer of complexity to an already contentious race.

Hourihan claims Lytle is 552 signatures short of the required threshold, alleging that thousands of his submitted signatures are invalid. She has also challenged Green Party candidate Risa Lombardo, claiming Lombardo falls 788 signatures short. For third-party candidates, the bar is much lower—around 1,800 valid signatures—compared to roughly 45,000 required for unaffiliated candidates. Still, even with the lower threshold, these challenges could determine who actually appears on the ballot.

Lytle, however, remains confident, stating his campaign submitted more than 6,000 signatures—more than triple the requirement—and that he fully expects to prevail. If he does, he believes the general election could become a true three-way race for governor.

But this trend is not limited to outsider candidates. Even incumbent officeholders are facing scrutiny. State Senator Brian Fernandez is being challenged over allegations that his petition signatures include duplicates, unqualified voters, and incomplete information. His response?

Confidence that his campaign has more than enough valid signatures to withstand the challenge.

Behind the scenes, political operatives are hard at work. Rumors are circulating that Merissa (Hamilton) Caldwell and her team spent significant time combing through signatures in an effort to remove State Treasurer candidate Kathleen Haley from the ballot. Whether those efforts succeed remains to be seen, but it underscores how aggressive and strategic campaigns have become.

Legislative races are also feeling the pressure. In Legislative District 30, candidate David Rose is being challenged by Jennifer Esposito.

Even at the grassroots level, the trend continues. One Precinct Committeeman, Rae Mishkin, attempted to remove a fellow PC candidate from the ballot—but failed to even list the correct name, mistakenly identifying Justin Heap instead. A major error that could quickly derail the challenge.

And then there’s El Mirage—a city of roughly 35,000 that may take the prize for the most contentious local politics this cycle. A staggering four challenges have been filed: three City Council candidates—Ponce, Winston, and Dorsey—and mayoral candidate Melissa Saenz are all under scrutiny. For a city of that size, the level of political intensity is remarkable.

What’s driving all of this? In part, it’s the high stakes. Control over policy, development, education, and public safety decisions all hang in the balance. But it’s also a reflection of a political environment that has grown increasingly combative. In El Mirage alone, there have already been controversies involving alleged stolen newsletters, accusations of out-of-control spending, and now, ballot access battles.

The message is clear: 2026 is not just about winning elections—it’s about surviving them.

For voters, this should serve as a wake-up call. The integrity of the ballot is critical, and while challenges can be a legitimate tool to ensure compliance with election law, they can also be weaponized as political strategy.

As this election cycle unfolds, one thing is certain—Arizona voters will need to pay close attention, because the candidates on the ballot may be determined long before Election Day.

Surprise Leaders Consider Pushing Back on ICE Facility — But Is It Already Too Late?

At the April 7 meeting, leaders in Surprise took a step many residents have been waiting for — beginning a serious discussion about how to push back against the planned ICE detention facility quietly purchased by the federal government earlier this year.

Across the country, cities that—like Surprise—were blindsided by the Department of Homeland Security purchasing warehouse space without local input are beginning to push back. In Chicago, city leaders have explored zoning challenges and demanded formal agreements to protect local resources. New York City officials have taken legal action and imposed limits on how migrant facilities operate within city boundaries. In Denver, leaders have pushed for reimbursement agreements and clearer federal accountability for costs tied to public safety services. Meanwhile, communities in El Paso have demanded transparency and federal coordination as they deal with the long-term impacts of being a primary intake location. The pattern is clear: when federal decisions are made without local partnership, cities are increasingly willing to assert their authority, demand accountability, and, when necessary, fight back. States and cities have rights.

Surprise Councilmember Chris Judd, whose district includes the site near Dysart and Sweetwater, placed the item on the agenda, signaling growing concern inside City Hall. His request focused on protecting local authority, safeguarding water resources, and standing up for residents — all issues that have been raised repeatedly over the past two months.

This was the first council discussion since city officials met with Department of Homeland Security regarding the project. DHS confirmed the facility would house single adults for short stays — typically three to seven days — before transferring them to larger processing centers in El Paso or Salt Lake City, or deporting them to their home countries.

But as with many federal promises, the details remain murky.

Promises Without Paper

DHS officials outlined several assurances:

• No unwarranted patrols in neighborhoods
• No entry into schools, churches, or senior centers
• Opportunities for city officials to tour the facility
• Environmental reviews and site plans shared
• Creation of a community oversight board

They also floated reimbursement for lost property tax revenue and discussed potential agreements to offset police, fire, and EMS costs.

But here’s the problem: none of it is in writing.

Councilmembers Johnny Melton and Chris Judd both raised the obvious question — how do you enforce promises that don’t legally exist?

There is talk of working with Congressman Paul Gosar to formalize agreements, but at this point, the city is being asked to trust a federal process it had no role in shaping.

The Real Concerns: Water, Location, and Long-Term Impact

Judd’s frustration was clear — and justified.

This facility is being placed in the middle of an established community. While the land is zoned industrial, it sits near schools, neighborhoods, and critical infrastructure. This is not an isolated desert site — it is part of a growing, family-oriented city.

Water is another major concern.

Initial estimates for a larger version of the facility suggested usage of up to 269,000 gallons per day. Even with the reduced 542-bed plan, the actual demand remains unknown. Under Surprise’s own ordinance, any use above 100,000 gallons per day requires council approval — raising the question: does the city even have authority here, or will federal power override local law?

That brings us to the Supremacy Clause — the federal government’s ability to bypass local control. It’s the same clause being used to push this project forward despite strong community opposition.

Luke Air Force Base Concerns

There is another issue that cannot be ignored — proximity to Luke Air Force Base.

The proposed site sits within the base’s departure zone, where overnight residential use is forbidden under state law. Judd argued that allowing this facility to move forward could jeopardize the mission of Luke — one of the most important economic and national security assets in the West Valley.

If that argument holds legally, it may be one of the strongest paths forward for the city to challenge the project.

A Heated Public Response

Residents showed up in force. More than 70 people signed up to speak, though comments were limited due to time constraints.

Much of the opposition was passionate — and at times, inflammatory.

State Senator Analise Ortiz and others called for the facility to be stopped “at all costs,” while protesters outside City Hall turned the issue into a broader political demonstration.

Let’s be honest — that kind of rhetoric doesn’t help.

We can strongly oppose this facility — and I do — without resorting to exaggerated or divisive language. This is too important of an issue for political theater.

The Bigger Reality: This Isn’t Just About Surprise

Here’s the truth many don’t want to say out loud:

This facility is not about deportation — it’s about detention. Many cities accross the nation are allowing ICE to use prisons to house detainees as they do not have enough room in detention centers since many people are not actually being deported. Because of the room in this facility I believe the promise of only 542 derainees is a false promise and will change due to "need for space."

Across the country, and here in Arizona, we are seeing a massive increase in habeas corpus petitions — legal filings that force the government to justify holding someone in custody under the Fifth Amendment.

In the United States District Court for the District of Arizona:

• Only 2 habeas petitions were filed in March of last year
• Nearly 350 were filed last month alone
• Over 900 have already been filed in the first three months of 2026

That is not normal. That is a system under strain.

The reality is many countries are not accepting deportees due to lack of travel documents. As a result, detainees sit in facilities longer — and increasingly challenge their detention in court.

Many are ultimately released.

So we are not solving the problem.

We are warehousing it.

Where Do We Go From Here?

I do not want this facility in Surprise — and frankly, I don’t want it anywhere.

It will change the character of our city. It places strain on resources. And it represents a federal overreach that cuts local communities out of decisions that directly impact them.

But we also have to face reality.

We must keep a secure border. That is non-negotiable.

And at the same time, we need a long-term solution for those already here.

That is why Congress must act — and pass legislation like the Dignity Act — creating a legal pathway for individuals who:

• Are working
• Paying taxes
• Not relying on government benefits
• And pass background checks

We can enforce our laws and still be a nation of fairness and order.

Final Thought

The next Surprise City Council Meeting will be critical.

The question is no longer whether residents are concerned — they clearly are.

The question is whether local leaders are willing to move beyond discussion… and take meaningful action. I have faith they will.

Because if they don’t?

As Councilmember Judd warned — we may be living with this decision forever.

Strong Schools, Strong Values: My Campaign for the Dysart Governing Board

Our schools are the foundation of our community. As a candidate for the Dysart Unified School District Governing Board, I am committed to protecting what makes our district exceptional while ensuring it continues to serve every family with excellence.

Dysart is an A-rated school district—a distinction that reflects the hard work of our teachers, administrators, students, and families. Maintaining that rating is not automatic. It requires strong leadership, clear priorities, and a commitment to high standards. I am prepared to be that voice on the board—focused, accountable, and dedicated to student success.

I believe our schools should reflect strong, common-sense conservative values: fiscal responsibility, transparency, parental involvement, and academic excellence. Parents should have a meaningful voice in their children’s education, and schools should prioritize preparing students for real success—whether that means college, career, or skilled trades.

At the same time, I strongly support school choice. Every family is different, and parents deserve the ability to choose the educational path that best meets their child’s needs. Supporting Dysart also means respecting and empowering families to make those decisions.

We have something special in Dysart. Protecting it will take leadership that understands both the importance of maintaining our A rating and the responsibility we have to taxpayers, parents, and students.

I am running because I care deeply about this community and the future of our schools. If you share these values and want to be part of this effort, I would love your support.

To contribute to my campaign or to host a meet and greet, please visit:



www.lisaeverett.com

Together, we can keep Dysart strong—for our students, our families, and our future.

MAG Study reveals what most already know

The MAG corridor study examined the stretch of US 60 from Loop 303 north toward SR 74 and found that the region is undergoing massive population growth. By 2050, the population in the study area is projected to reach over 272,000 people—more than six times what it was in 2020.

That kind of growth is not theoretical—it is already happening. New housing, industrial development, and logistics expansion are all converging in the northwest Valley, placing enormous pressure on infrastructure that was never designed to handle this level of demand.

Traffic is Already at a Breaking Point

Residents have been sounding the alarm for years, reporting daily congestion and dangerous conditions along US 60 near Loop 303.

The MAG study confirms those concerns and projects a dramatic increase in traffic volumes over the next two decades. The corridor serves multiple critical functions:

• Local commuter traffic
• Regional travel across the Valley
• Major freight movement route

This combination makes it one of the most complex and heavily used transportation corridors in Arizona.

What MAG Says Needs to Happen

The study outlines several key recommendations to handle future demand:

• Improved access between US 60 and Loop 303
• New and redesigned interchanges
• Better connections to surrounding arterial roads
• A long-term access management plan to reduce congestion points

Additionally, the Arizona Department of Transportation has already completed short-term fixes—adding lanes, adjusting signals, and improving traffic flow in early 2026.

But even ADOT acknowledges these are only temporary solutions.

The Timeline Problem

Here’s where the real concern lies.

Major, long-term improvements—including interchange reconstruction and expanded access—are not expected to begin until 2028, with full completion potentially years after that.

That means residents are facing years of worsening congestion before meaningful relief arrives.

What This Means for Surprise and surrounding Areas

This is not just a traffic issue—it’s a quality-of-life issue.

The Loop 303 and US 60 corridor is:

• A gateway to the northwest Valley
• A critical economic corridor
• A daily reality for thousands of commuters

Without accelerated investment and planning, the study makes it clear: infrastructure is not keeping pace with growth.

Final Thought

The MAG study confirms what many have been saying for years—growth in the West Valley is outpacing infrastructure, and the consequences are already being felt.

The question now is whether leaders at the local, regional, and state level will act with urgency—or whether residents of Surprise will be left sitting in traffic, waiting for relief that is still years away.

PATRIOT HAPPY HOUR WITH FELLOW REPUBLICANS!

Join Us for Another Great Evening!

Due to overwhelming demand, we’re bringing back our Patriot Happy Hour at State 48 in Surprise! Last month’s gathering was a fantastic success, with great food, drinks, and, most importantly, meaningful conversations with fellow conservatives. Let’s do it again!

 Where: State 48 Brewery - 13823 West Bell Road, Surprise, AZ 85374

 When: Wednesday, April 29, 2026

 Time: 4:00 PM – 7:00 PM

This is the perfect opportunity to connect with like-minded individuals, get to know fellow PATRIOTS, and strengthen our local Republican community. Whether you're a seasoned PC, new to our LD, or simply want to make new friends everyone is welcome!

Bring a friend and join us for an evening of camaraderie, networking, and fun. Let’s keep the momentum going!

Patriot Happy Hour is always the last Wednesday of the month.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE YOUR CLUB LISTED PLEASE CONTACT ME