SEPTEMBER 14, 2026

There is a monthly cost associated with producing and distributing this newsletter. If you value the information being shared, please consider making a contribution to help keep it going. Your support makes it possible to continue bringing this information to our community.

Remembering September 11: I Still Remember the America of September 12

Twenty-five years ago, America woke up to a beautiful September morning and went to bed a different nation.

On September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked our country, killing nearly 3,000 innocent people at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines Flight 93.

We remember the images.

We remember the smoke pouring from the Twin Towers. We remember people running through the streets of New York covered in dust. We remember the Pentagon burning. We remember the courageous passengers of Flight 93 who fought back, sacrificing their own lives and preventing what could have been an even greater tragedy.

And we remember our first responders.

While others were running away from danger, firefighters, police officers, paramedics, and ordinary Americans were running toward it. Many knew they might not come home. They went anyway.

That is America.

Then Came September 12

As horrific as September 11 was, I will never forget what happened the next day.

On September 12, we weren't Republicans and Democrats. We weren't conservatives and liberals.

We were Americans.

American flags appeared everywhere — on homes, businesses, cars and overpasses. Churches filled with people praying. Strangers helped strangers. Communities came together.

We thanked police officers and firefighters when we saw them. We hugged our families a little tighter. We understood that freedom was precious and that being an American meant something.

I wish the America we live in today looked more like the America of September 12, 2001.

Today, political disagreements too often become personal hatred. Social media rewards outrage. Americans are encouraged to put one another into categories and view our neighbors as enemies because they vote differently, worship differently or see the world differently.

We have forgotten how quickly all those divisions disappeared when our country was attacked.

Patriotism Shouldn't Require a Tragedy

As a conservative, I believe deeply in the principles upon which this nation was built: individual liberty, limited government, personal responsibility, religious freedom, the Constitution and the rule of law.

But patriotism is bigger than a political party.

You don't have to agree with your neighbor about everything to stand beside them as an American.

September 12 taught us that.

We remembered that despite our differences, there is far more that unites us than divides us.

We remembered that America is worth defending.

And we remembered that freedom is never guaranteed.

Never Forget

"Never Forget" cannot simply be a phrase we post once a year.

We must tell younger generations what happened that morning. We must remember the nearly 3,000 people who never came home. We must remember the first responders who climbed those stairs. We must remember the passengers and crew of Flight 93 who refused to surrender without a fight.

We should also remember the men and women of our military who answered America's call in the years that followed, including those who never returned home.

But perhaps there is one more thing we should promise never to forget:

September 12.

I miss the America that existed on September 12, 2001.

I miss seeing American flags everywhere.

I miss the sense that loving your country wasn't controversial.

I miss neighbors looking out for one another.

I miss Americans understanding that whatever disagreements we had, we were still one people blessed to call this country home.

We cannot bring back those we lost on September 11.

But we can choose to bring back some of what we found on September 12.

We can choose faith over fear, gratitude over resentment, service over selfishness and country over political division.

Twenty-five years later, let us remember the lives lost, honor the heroes who ran toward danger and thank God for the freedoms we still enjoy.

May we never forget September 11.

And may America someday rediscover the unity of September 12.

God bless those we lost. God bless their families. And God bless the United States of America.

Why I Believe the Democratic Party Will Keep Moving Left

One of the biggest political questions heading into the 2026 midterms is what direction the Democratic Party will take.

Will Democrats respond to voters who want moderation, or will the party continue moving left?

I believe the more important question is not what any single Democratic candidate says during an election. We need to look at the longer-term trends and the forces operating inside the party.

Interestingly, the Democratic electorate itself is not unanimous about moving left. A 2025 Gallup poll found that 45% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents wanted their party to become more moderate, compared with 29% who wanted it to become more liberal and 22% who wanted it to remain about where it was.

So why might the party nevertheless continue moving left?

Follow the History

The modern Democratic Party's support for an expanded federal role in the economy did not happen overnight.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal dramatically expanded federal involvement during the Great Depression. Congress later passed the Employment Act of 1946, formally declaring a federal responsibility to pursue conditions promoting employment, production and purchasing power. The law specifically called for policies fostering both employment and “free competitive enterprise.”

Then came Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, with major expansions in federal health care, anti-poverty and social programs.

Whatever one thinks of those policies, the direction is unmistakable: over generations, Democrats increasingly embraced government as a tool for addressing economic and social problems.

That philosophy remains visible today.

The Democratic Party's most recent national platform supports expanded social programs, stronger labor protections, infrastructure spending, government investment and greater collective-bargaining protections.

That doesn't automatically make every Democrat a socialist. It does, however, demonstrate a fundamental philosophical difference over the proper size and role of government.

Government and Organized Labor Matter

Another factor is the Democratic Party's longstanding relationship with organized labor.

Government workers are substantially more likely to belong to unions than private-sector workers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 32.9% of public-sector workers were union members in 2025, compared with just 5.9% of private-sector workers. Local government had an even higher unionization rate of 37.8%.

Democrats openly describe organized labor as an important constituency. Their platform supports the PRO Act, public-sector bargaining rights and policies intended to make union organizing easier.

That relationship creates an important political incentive. Organized labor wants policies favorable to workers and collective bargaining, while Democrats benefit from the political organization and support labor provides.

I don't expect that relationship to disappear.

Primaries Can Pull Parties Away From the Middle

There is another force at work that affects both political parties: primary elections.

The people most passionate about politics are often the people most likely to volunteer, donate, organize and participate in primaries. They are not necessarily representative of the average voter.

For Democrats, that creates opportunities for progressive activists and organizations to exert influence during Democratic primaries. Republicans face their own version of this phenomenon on the right.

Campaign-finance changes have also weakened the parties' traditional role as gatekeepers.

Candidates today can benefit from independent expenditures by super PACs and other outside organizations rather than depending entirely on their political party for financial support.

That makes it more difficult for party leadership to simply decide who is—and isn't—a viable candidate.

The Political Problem With Promising Less

There is also a basic problem with building a political coalition around government programs.

Once government creates a benefit, eliminating or significantly reducing it can become politically difficult.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food assistance, education programs, tax credits and countless other federal programs have constituencies that depend upon or strongly support them.

That isn't exclusively a Democratic phenomenon. Republicans have frequently defended popular government programs as well.

But Democrats generally advocate a larger federal role in health care, labor policy, climate policy, education and the social safety net. Their current platform reflects that philosophy.

That means Democratic candidates frequently compete over how government should expand or improve programs rather than whether government should withdraw from those areas altogether.

The Battle Inside the Democratic Party

This is where I believe the Democratic Party faces its real challenge.

Its broader electorate appears to be asking for moderation. Gallup's numbers are difficult to ignore: 45% wanted a more moderate Democratic Party.

But political parties aren't shaped exclusively by the average voter.

They are also shaped by activists, donors, unions, advocacy organizations, primary voters and candidates capable of building their own fundraising operations.

Those competing pressures will determine where Democrats go next.

We shouldn't assume every Democrat is moving toward socialism, nor should we pretend there aren't significant differences between moderate Democrats and the party's progressive wing.

But we also shouldn't ignore the historical trajectory or the incentives operating within today's party.

I believe those forces will continue creating pressure from the left even while a substantial portion of Democratic voters asks their party to move toward the center.

That contradiction may ultimately become one of the most important political stories of 2026.

The question isn't simply whether Democratic voters want moderation. It is whether the voters who want moderation have enough influence inside their own party to produce it.

Arizona Eliminates ‘Bonus Points’ from School Letter Grades

Arizona parents rely on school letter grades to help them understand how well their children’s schools are performing. Beginning with the 2026–27 school year, those grades should provide a clearer picture of academic performance.

In August, the Arizona State Board of Education voted unanimously to eliminate so-called “bonus points” from the formula used to assign A-through-F letter grades to public schools.

The decision followed a state audit that raised serious questions about whether Arizona’s grading system was giving parents an accurate picture of school performance.

How Could a School Earn an A With Low Proficiency?

One of the most troubling findings was that some schools were able to earn an “A” rating even when fewer than 10% of their students demonstrated proficiency in core subjects such as math or English.

How does that happen?

Arizona’s grading formula included opportunities for schools to earn additional points for factors outside basic academic proficiency and growth. Those bonus points could raise a school’s overall score—and, in some cases, its final letter grade.

Programs and accomplishments recognized through bonus points may certainly have value. The problem comes when those additional points obscure what parents reasonably expect an A, B, C, D or F to tell them: Are students learning and achieving academically?

Under the new system, those bonus points will be removed beginning with the 2026–27 school year.

State officials estimate that approximately 10% of Arizona schools could fall an entire letter grade as a result.

That does not necessarily mean those schools suddenly became worse.

It means the measurement changed.

Parents Deserve a Grade They Can Understand

If a parent sees that a school has earned an “A,” it is reasonable to assume students at that school are performing at a high academic level. Parents should not have to study a complicated formula to determine what that A actually represents.

Arizona should absolutely recognize schools for accomplishments such as helping students with special needs, preparing students for military service, expanding career and technical education, and providing other valuable opportunities.

But those achievements can be reported separately rather than being used to inflate a school's overall academic letter grade.

The State Board is also considering additional changes involving how academic growth and proficiency are measured, including the possibility of providing separate performance indicators—or “mini-grades”—for different areas.

That could be a positive step.

A parent might be able to see, for example, that a school earned an A for student growth, a B for proficiency and another rating for college and career readiness. That provides much more information than combining everything into a single complicated score.

What This Means for Dysart

This change will be especially important for parents in districts such as Dysart Unified School District, where school letter grades are frequently cited as evidence of academic success.

If some Arizona schools receive lower grades under the new formula, we should resist the temptation to immediately conclude that education suddenly declined. Instead, we need to examine why a grade changed.

Was it because student achievement declined—or because bonus points that previously increased the school's score disappeared?

That distinction matters.

As someone running for the Dysart Governing Board, I believe we should welcome greater transparency, even when the numbers are uncomfortable.

Our goal should never be to protect a letter grade.

Our goal should be to make sure our students are actually earning it.

Parents deserve straightforward information about how students are performing. Teachers deserve a system that accurately recognizes the academic progress they are helping students make. And taxpayers deserve to know whether the billions of dollars invested in public education are producing results.

An A should mean an A.

Removing bonus points is not about making Arizona schools look worse. It is about making our school accountability system more meaningful.

If a school is truly excellent, a clearer grading system should demonstrate that excellence. If a school is struggling, parents, teachers and governing boards need to know that too—because we cannot fix problems we are unwilling to accurately measure.

Transparency should not be something schools fear.

It should be the foundation for improvement.

USPS Mail Ballot Rules Head to Supreme Court as New Audit Finds Election-Mail Problems

With the November 3 election less than two months away, a major fight over mail-in ballots has reached the U.S. Supreme Court at the same time a new federal audit is raising questions about how consistently the U.S. Postal Service follows its existing election-mail procedures.

The two developments are separate, but their timing makes them particularly important.

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to allow USPS to implement new requirements for federal-election ballot mail. The rules grew out of a March 31 executive order from President Donald Trump addressing citizenship verification and election integrity.

The administration argues the requirements will help protect election integrity and reduce the possibility that the federal mail system could be used to facilitate voter fraud.

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia challenged portions of the administration's actions, arguing that the federal government is intruding into election responsibilities traditionally exercised by the states.

Now the Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the new USPS requirements can take effect while that litigation continues.

What Would Change?

The new USPS rule establishes additional requirements for ballots sent through the mail in federal elections.

Among other things, election officials would have to comply with new ballot-envelope preparation standards and provide specified ballot-mail data through a new federal portal.

USPS says the rule does not give the Postal Service authority to decide who is eligible to vote.

According to the final rule, state and local officials would continue determining voter eligibility, maintaining voter rolls and deciding whether returned ballots are eligible to be counted. USPS says its role would be limited to regulating federal ballot mail traveling through the postal system.

The administration characterizes these requirements as relatively modest mailing standards that fall within USPS's existing authority to regulate mail.

The states challenging the rule see things differently. They argue that implementing substantial new requirements this close to an election could interfere with their ability to distribute mail ballots and potentially prevent eligible voters from receiving them.

That dispute is now before the Supreme Court.

The Case Has Taken Several Turns

A federal judge in Massachusetts initially blocked portions of the administration's plans.

The Supreme Court subsequently allowed implementation of the president's executive order to move forward at an earlier stage of the litigation, concluding that the states' challenge was premature because the order had not yet been implemented.

But that wasn't the end of the case.

Once USPS issued its final rule, the states challenged the actual regulations.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a temporary restraining order on August 27 and followed it with a preliminary injunction on September 4.

The Trump administration then returned to the Supreme Court.

The government's current application, United States Postal Service v. California, No. 26A305, was filed September 6. The administration is asking the justices to stay the preliminary injunction and allow the USPS rule to take effect while litigation continues.

The Supreme Court docket shows responses and numerous friend-of-the-court briefs were filed September 9 because the Purcell Principle is at play.

Then Came the USPS Inspector General's Audit

While the courts are considering whether USPS should assume these additional responsibilities, the Postal Service's own Office of Inspector General released an audit examining its handling of election and political mail during the 2026 primary elections.

The September 4 report contains both encouraging and concerning findings.

Overall performance was strong.

From February through May, USPS reported on-time processing scores ranging from 97.75% to 98.99% for election and political mail.

The Inspector General also found that most facilities it visited generally followed USPS election-related policies.

But auditors identified procedural problems.

The audit examined nine processing facilities and 73 delivery units in eight states during primary elections and later examined five additional processing facilities in New Jersey and Tennessee.

Among the concerns were weaknesses involving employee training, ballot postmarks, required reports for late-arriving political mail, daily certifications and communication with election officials.

The Inspector General concluded that USPS needed greater understanding and enforcement of some election-mail procedures.

The watchdog made 11 recommendations.

USPS management agreed with 10 and disagreed with one, although the Inspector General said management's planned corrective actions should address the identified problems.

Why the Timing Matters

This is where the audit and Supreme Court case intersect.

The audit did not evaluate USPS's implementation of President Trump's executive order or determine whether the new ballot-mail rule is workable. The Inspector General specifically says that issue was outside the scope of this audit.

Therefore, the audit should not be interpreted as concluding that the new rule will fail.

But it does provide important information about USPS's existing election-mail operations at the same time the Supreme Court is considering whether the agency should implement additional requirements immediately before a nationwide election.

The administration argues delaying the rule creates its own harm because ballots are already beginning to enter the mail system in some states. It maintains that states cannot choose to conduct elections using the federal postal system and simultaneously claim that election mail is exempt from legitimate USPS mailing requirements.

Opponents counter that imposing a new system this close to Election Day could create confusion and potentially interfere with voters receiving ballots.

Those are fundamentally different assessments of risk.

Nearly 99% Is Good — But Elections Magnify Small Problems

There is another important lesson in the Inspector General's report.

A processing rate approaching 99% sounds excellent—and in an operation involving millions of pieces of mail, it is significant.

But elections are unusual.

Even a relatively small number of delayed, incorrectly postmarked or improperly processed ballots can become important because state laws establish deadlines governing whether ballots can be counted.

That makes consistent procedures particularly important.

The Inspector General's findings don't establish widespread failure by USPS. In fact, the report specifically says most facilities generally complied with election-related policies.

But the audit demonstrates that problems existed and that USPS itself recognizes opportunities for improvement.

The Supreme Court Now Faces a Time-Sensitive Question

The larger constitutional and administrative questions surrounding the president's executive order and USPS rule will continue to be litigated.

The immediate question before the Supreme Court is narrower: Should the lower court's injunction remain in effect while that litigation proceeds, or should USPS be permitted to implement the new requirements for the November election?

There are competing concerns.

The administration argues the regulations are legitimate exercises of USPS authority intended to protect election integrity.

The challenging states and other opponents argue that introducing new requirements shortly before an election creates unnecessary risks for election administrators and voters.

And now the Postal Service's own Inspector General has documented areas where existing election-mail procedures need improvement.

With ballots already beginning to move through the mail in parts of the country, there isn't much time for uncertainty.

Whatever the Supreme Court decides, the goal should remain straightforward: eligible voters who properly request mail ballots should receive them, properly returned ballots should be handled according to applicable law, and the Postal Service should process election mail accurately and on time.

With millions of Americans relying on the mail to participate in elections, both election integrity and reliable ballot delivery matter.

Federal Judge Refuses to End MCSO Oversight — But Opens Door to Scaling It Back

After more than a decade of federal court oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, county officials had hoped the long-running Melendres v. Arpaio case might finally be approaching its end.

For now, the answer is no.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow on Thursday denied Maricopa County’s request to terminate the federal court orders overseeing MCSO, concluding that the Sheriff’s Office has not yet demonstrated that the objectives of those orders have been fully achieved.

However, the decision does not mean the current level of federal oversight will necessarily continue indefinitely.

Judge Snow also indicated that reduced monitoring may now be appropriate and gave the parties 60 days to submit proposals for modifying the existing oversight structure.

That could become an important step toward eventually bringing this extraordinarily long and expensive case to an end.

County and DOJ Wanted Oversight Ended

For more than a decade, MCSO has operated under extensive federal court supervision stemming from Melendres v. Arpaio, the lawsuit that found the Sheriff’s Office engaged in unconstitutional practices involving Latino motorists.

Maricopa County asked the court in December to end the oversight, arguing that today's Sheriff's Office is fundamentally different from the agency that originally became the subject of the lawsuit.

Sheriff Jerry Sheridan and county officials maintained that MCSO is now constitutionally compliant, has undergone substantial institutional reforms and has maintained compliance with most provisions of the court's orders for years.

Significantly, the U.S. Department of Justice supported the county's request for relief.

That created an unusual situation in which the federal government itself agreed that the time had come to consider ending federal oversight of a local law enforcement agency.

The plaintiffs disagreed, arguing that unresolved problems remained and that removing federal supervision would be premature.

Judge Snow ultimately sided with the plaintiffs on the question of completely ending the orders.

Judge Says MCSO Has Not Yet Met the Standard

In his ruling, Judge Snow concluded that MCSO had not demonstrated that the goals behind the court orders had been achieved.

Of particular importance, the judge found that the Sheriff's Office had not established sufficient safeguards to assure the court that the agency would not return to the unconstitutional practices that led to federal intervention in the first place.

That distinction matters.

The issue is no longer simply whether MCSO has complied with individual requirements imposed by the court. Judge Snow is looking at whether the underlying reforms have become sufficiently institutionalized that they will continue after federal supervision disappears.

County officials argued that years of compliance, new policies, training and institutional changes demonstrate that they have.

The court was not yet convinced.

But Oversight Could Be Reduced

There was, however, an important development for MCSO and Maricopa County taxpayers.

Judge Snow acknowledged that the current monitoring structure may no longer be necessary in its existing form.

Rather than simply maintaining the status quo, he ordered the parties to spend the next 60 days developing proposed modifications to the court orders.

That opens the door to eliminating or reducing oversight in areas where MCSO has demonstrated sustained compliance while retaining monitoring in areas where the court believes additional work remains necessary.

In many ways, that may be the most consequential part of Thursday's ruling.

After more than a decade of reforms, training, policy changes, reporting requirements and monitoring, the court is now at least considering whether portions of this massive oversight system have accomplished their purpose.

The next question should be: Exactly what remains to be accomplished?

The Cost Cannot Be Ignored

There is another enormous part of this story: the cost to Maricopa County taxpayers.

More than $300 million in expenses have reportedly been attributed to Melendres-related compliance over the years.

A 2026 investigation also raised questions about approximately $163 million in expenditures and whether everything attributed to the federal court orders was actually required by them.

Regardless of where someone stands on the original lawsuit, taxpayers have every right to ask what they have received for that enormous investment.

Federal oversight was imposed to correct constitutional violations. It should have measurable objectives, and when those objectives are achieved, the corresponding oversight should end.

The court's new 60-day process presents an opportunity to begin doing exactly that.

Maricopa County Needs a Finish Line

The original constitutional violations that led to Melendres were serious. But the Sheriff's Office operating today is not frozen in time.

More than a decade has passed. Leadership has changed. Policies have changed. Training has changed. Millions of dollars have been spent implementing reforms.

Judge Snow has now determined that MCSO has not demonstrated enough to completely terminate federal oversight.

That decision should be respected.

But his acknowledgment that monitoring may appropriately be reduced is equally important.

The next phase should not simply produce another open-ended monitoring arrangement. It should identify precisely which requirements remain necessary, what MCSO must accomplish to satisfy them and what objective benchmarks will result in those requirements being terminated.

If MCSO remains deficient in specific areas, identify them.

If particular reforms have succeeded, acknowledge that and end the corresponding oversight.

And if additional safeguards are necessary to prevent the Sheriff's Office from reverting to past practices, establish exactly what those safeguards must be.

After more than a decade of federal supervision and hundreds of millions of dollars in associated expenses, Maricopa County residents deserve accountability from MCSO — but they also deserve accountability from the federal oversight process.

Thursday's ruling did not provide the finish line.

.

But the next 60 days could finally begin defining one.

So, What Actually Changed? Understanding Maricopa County’s New Election Agreement

Many of you may be asking yourselves: after more than a year of attorneys, court hearings, disagreements and, at times, heated public discussions between the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Recorder’s Office, what actually changed?

That is a reasonable question.

In July, following mediation led by Judge Christopher Coury, the Board of Supervisors and Recorder’s Office reached a settlement governing how election responsibilities will be divided. Both sides signed the agreement, and the Board formally approved it.

The most important result may be that voters now have a clearer picture of who is responsible for what.

What Is New?

One of the biggest changes is in-person early voting.

The Recorder’s Office now controls all aspects of in-person early voting, including selecting and setting up locations, operating equipment and staffing those locations. Early voting begins 27 days before Election Day.

The Recorder’s Office is responsible for key early-voting and voter-registration functions, including:

• Voter registration
• Mail-in/early voting responsibilities
• In-person early voting
• Early-voting drop-box responsibilities
• Signature verification
• Provisional-ballot processing

The Board of Supervisors and its Elections Department retain other major election responsibilities, including:

• Recruitment, hiring and training of temporary election workers
• Emergency Voting
• Election Day in-person voting
• Election Day voting locations
• Ballot tabulation
• Election-related safety and facility security
• The canvass

The agreement creates a dividing line: the Recorder administers the early-voting period, while the Board administers Emergency Voting and Election Day voting. The Board also conducts and oversees ballot tabulation.

There are responsibilities that require the two offices to work together. That cooperation is particularly important when custody of ballots changes hands. Clear chain-of-custody procedures and defined responsibilities help ensure accountability throughout the process.

The Primary Was the First Test

The July 21 Primary Election went smoothly by several important measures.

Final turnout was 26.66%, representing 677,387 Maricopa County voters. More than 2,900 poll workers staffed 236 Vote Centers, and 61,867 voters cast ballots in person on Election Day.

Another approximately 23,400 voters used the new option allowing them to tabulate an early ballot at a Vote Center on Election Day.

The county reported 99% of the results by the day after the election.

That was impressive, but voters should not automatically expect the General Election results to arrive at exactly the same pace.

There are several reasons.

General elections traditionally involve more voters. More voters mean more ballots to process. Ballots dropped off on or immediately before Election Day must still go through required processing before they can be tabulated.

The type and length of the ballot can also affect processing time.

So, if the General Election takes longer to complete than the Primary Election, that alone should not be interpreted as evidence that something has gone wrong. The important questions are whether procedures are being followed, ballots are being properly processed, and results are being reported accurately as that work is completed.

After All the Fighting, Where Did We Land?

After more than a year of disagreements and litigation, the practical outcome is fairly straightforward.

The Recorder has responsibility over early voting. The Board has responsibility over Emergency Voting, Election Day operations and tabulation. Where their responsibilities intersect, the agreement establishes procedures for cooperation.

Perhaps most importantly, both offices now have a written framework defining their respective responsibilities.

The Primary Election provided an early test of that division of duties. The General Election on November 3 will be a much larger one.

With higher turnout expected and potentially many more ballots arriving close to Election Day, patience will be important. Fast results are nice, but accurate results are more important.

After more than a year spent debating who should be responsible for what, Maricopa County voters now have a clearer answer.

Now it is up to both offices to make the agreement work.

A Heartfelt Thank You to My Readers

Every week, I sit down to research, write and put together this newsletter because I believe informed citizens make stronger communities. But Patriotnheels would not continue to grow without you—the readers who open it each week, share it with friends and support the work behind it.

So this week, I simply want to say thank you.

Thank you to everyone who continues to subscribe and read Patriotnheels. There is certainly no shortage of information competing for our attention these days, and I am grateful that you choose to spend some of your time reading what I have researched and written.

Thank you to those who forward the newsletter to friends, family members and neighbors. Many new readers have found Patriotnheels because one of you thought an article was worth sharing. Word of mouth has helped this newsletter grow to approximately 10,000 readers, something I never take for granted.

And a very special thank you to those who have made financial contributions.

Producing and distributing a newsletter to thousands of people every week comes with ongoing expenses. Your donations help cover those costs and allow me to continue providing the newsletter. Whether your contribution was large or small, please know that it is sincerely appreciated and makes a difference.

Patriotnheels has always been about more than simply reporting what happened. I try to dig deeper, ask questions, research the facts and provide information about the issues affecting our communities—from local government and education to elections, energy, development and public policy.

You may not always agree with everything I write, and that's okay. I believe we need more thoughtful discussion, more questions and more people willing to look beyond a headline or social media post before forming an opinion.

Most importantly, I want Patriotnheels to continue being a place where readers can learn about issues that may not receive much attention elsewhere.

So, to everyone who reads, subscribes, donates and shares Patriotnheels—thank you.

You are the reason this newsletter continues each week.

And if you enjoy Patriotnheels, please keep sharing it with your friends and neighbors. Every new reader helps expand the conversation and ensures that important local issues continue to receive the attention they deserve.

I am grateful to have you along for the journey.

Thank you for reading, thank you for sharing, and thank you for your support.

— Lisa