by Matthew Holloway | Sep 17, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona House Ethics Chair Lupe Diaz (R-LD19) blasted Democrats Friday for “weaponizing” complaints against Rep. John Gillette (R-LD30). Democrat Reps. Oscar De Los Santos, Nancy Gutierrez, Quanta Crews, and Stacey Travers filed a complaint on September 10, citing an interview from Gillette and social media posts. They called his remarks “offensive” and “unbecoming of an elected official,” noting his criticism of radical Islamists and Sharia law.
In a string of posts to X referred to in the Democrats’ complaint, Rep. Gillette wrote, “Islamophobia is a construct of the Marxist left I reject. I hear them state that they stand with Hamas and Iran, they want to bring Sharia Law to the US. They chant death to US. I have years of direct experience with these savages. [Their] own religion preached convert or die. F**K EM. If they want here to become the s**t hole they left… they can go home. The democrats support them. DEMOCRATS HATE AMERICA!”
Responding to subsequent comments, he clarified his position, stating, “I was critical of their policies. “Shiria(sic) Law and convert or die” are policy positions of Islam. Democrats want to install Socialism as a policy. I criticize both as they are repugnant to the Constitution. My reply is based on experience in the Middle East and Soviet Union. Not some leftist theory cooked up in a liberal college classroom with the same professors and systems that say there are 32 genders.. grow up and see reality…. remember Covid when you were told to wear a face covering, not work. The left forced this on us, not people like me.”
In their complaint, the Democrat lawmakers claimed, “Rep. Gillette referred to Muslims as ‘f***ing savages’ who don’t properly ‘assimilate’ into American culture. By referring to Muslims as ‘savages’ and ‘terrorists,’ Rep. Gillette dehumanized them and demonstrates his bigotry against an entire religious group, which constitutes about 1% of the population in this state.”
In a letter responding to the Democrat representatives, Chairman Diaz wrote that “remarks, statements, or opinions by a member, alone, are not traditionally the subject of an ethics inquiry. Subject to our House Rules regarding debate, members—like any other citizen—have a First Amendment right to the freedom of speech, as well as a right to freely speak under Article 2, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution.”
Citing the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Diaz added, “Moreover, particularly in light of recent events, it is imperative that government institutions protect the freedom of speech, rather than take actions to silence, punish, or censor speech simply because someone might find it offensive or disagreeable. The inquiry you request this Committee to make would result in no more than an inquiry into the sincerity of Representative Gillette’s beliefs or a debate into the merits of those beliefs— neither for which an Ethics Committee hearing is the proper venue.”
Diaz concluded, “It would be inconsistent with constitutional principles—and unprecedented, based on past practices of previous House Ethics Committee Chairmen presented with similar complaints to undertake any further review or investigation of your complaint. Accordingly, I will not take further action on this matter.”
He further added an admonishment to the Democratic representatives, urging them to review Rep. Gillette’s response to their press release announcing the complaint, entitled “Defending America Against Radical Ideologies and Political Hypocrisy,” and added, “To the extent that you have any lingering concerns about his statements, it would be prudent to engage in civil discourse rather than weaponizing the House Ethics Complaint process.”
In the statement, Gillette explained in part, “Immigrants are welcomed here as guests who can become fellow citizens, and gratitude, respect, and loyalty to our nation are the minimum expectations. Yet too often, what we see instead is a demand that Americans change our culture, our speech, or our religion so as not to ‘offend’ those who chose to come here. That is not assimilation—it is subversion. I will treat every human being with dignity and respect. But I will not, and Americans must not bow to the demands of those who place their foreign ideologies above our Constitution.”
Gillette defined the group he opposes as “radical Islamists,” who seek “the establishment of a worldwide caliphate,” adding, “While some [in] the Muslim world may practice their faith peacefully, many more have weaponized the concept of jihad to justify terrorism, mass murder, and political conquest.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 16, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Turning Point USA held a vigil for Charlie Kirk at the Desert Financial Arena at Arizona State University on Monday. Thousands of people, young and old, showed up to honor the life of Kirk.
According to an email from Turning Point USA’s ASU Chapter, the vigil to remember Kirk, who was assassinated on Wednesday, was held under high security conditions with a ‘clear bag’ policy in effect and a prohibition on any banners, flags, and signs of any shape or size in the arena.
Initially, student attendance was prioritized on Sunday, September 14th, with general attendees asked to join a waiting list; however, by Sunday evening, the restriction was removed, and all attendees were invited to RSVP.
Tyler Bowyer, COO of Turning Point Action, wrote in a post to X, “Please join us tonight to celebrate his life and pray. We have a long week ahead of us and the entire Turning Point ecosystem feels your love and prayers. The students in particular deserve to feel it, especially in such a memorable place for us. ASU!”
In an email, Dr. Owen Anderson, faculty advisor of the chapter wrote:
“I hope you can join us tonight. To understand what Charlie Kirk was doing, you have to remember his context.
Charlie was debating edgy university students who often used profane language and hurled insults at conservatives and Christians. He wasn’t playing cards at a retirement home.
In a setting where anti-Christian professors were never challenged, and where many Christian intellectuals felt pressured to compromise with leftism and remain silent, Charlie Kirk changed all of that.
Suddenly, conservative and Christian students felt they could speak up and defend their beliefs. They saw how wrong it was to pay tuition for ideological training camps. Charlie inspired them to have courage. And being courageous is loving because it presents the truth to students who are captive to unbelief.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 14, 2025 | Education, News
By Matthew Holloway |
A dozen Maricopa County libraries have removed more than 50 books on sex education and puberty from their children’s sections. The move follows complaints from parents and advocacy groups who said the books contained inappropriate material.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, the Maricopa County Library District (MCLD) has been subject to increasing criticism from parents’ rights advocates like Arizona Women of Action (AZWOA) and EZAZ, who engaged with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) in June. The groups objected to books such as “It’s Perfectly Normal” by Robie H. Harris and “This Book Is Gay” by Juno Dawson for the titles’ graphic depictions of sex and sexual behavior.
Responding to a petition launched by AZWOA, the BOS approved a pilot program at the Queen Creek Library, allowing parents to submit a form listing books their children may not check out.
According to AZCentral, the Board later directed the books to be relocated in response to the concerns brought to them. Due to the administrative nature of the move, a formal vote was not required. Supervisor Steve Gallardo, the board’s only Democrat, expressed objections to the outlet, saying, “Call it whatever you want … it’s wrong, and we shouldn’t be engaging in this.” Gallardo claimed that although he “agreed with some of the changes,” parents should be responsible for monitoring their children in the libraries.
Republican Supervisors Lesko, Stewart, and Brophy McGee supported the measure fully, stating that the measure is intended to:
- “Protect our youngest from their prying eyes and curiosity,” per Stewart.
- “Relocate questionable books into areas of the library that are less, or not, accessible to children,” according to Brophy-McGee.
- “Make sure that sexually explicit library books are out of the reach of minors,” as described by Lesko.
As reported by the Arizona Daily Independent, several books were brought to the BOS’s attention, though the complete list of inappropriate books is extensive. The AZWOA referred to a book rating site, ratedbooks.org, as well as a book list on Scottsdaleunites.com.
Merissa Hamilton of EZAZ later posted a list of egregious books found on MCLD shelves. Highlighted titles include “It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health” by Robie H. Harris, which features cartoon-like drawings with sexually graphic information. “This Book Is Gay” by Juno Dawson is also in question because it instructs children on how to engage in meetups for casual sexual encounters. Novels by Ellen Hopkins graphically depict sex, human trafficking, and abuse. These books may violate state statutes, including ARS 13-3506:
“It is unlawful for any person, with knowledge of the character of the item involved, to recklessly furnish, present, provide, make available, give, lend, show, advertise, or distribute to minors any item that is harmful to minors. C. A violation of this section is a Class 4 felony.”
These library books may also violate ARS 13-3507:
“A. It is unlawful for any person knowingly to place explicit sexual material upon public display or knowingly to fail to take prompt action to remove such a display from property in his possession or under his control after learning of its existence. B. A person who violates any provision of this section is a Class 6 felony.
The potential prompted citizens to consider bringing these books to the attention of the county’s sheriff and attorney’s offices.
County Manager Jen Pokorski told Republic reporters in June that the county is contemplating a new rule, a new “software solution” which would permit parents to restrict their children’s access to different books by category.
“I think the goal of the new software would be, the books that we’ve deemed — or that have illustrative pornography, will be off limits to children under a certain age,” Supervisor Mark Stewart explained. “And then anything that a parent would want to opt their child into, they’re welcome to sign up and do that.”
However, he did clarify, to the Arizona Republic, “I did not say that sex-ed books are illustrative pornography.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 14, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Attorneys from the Goldwater Institute, representing the Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, joined former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould on Thursday to challenge Proposition 211. The measure, called the “Voters’ Right to Know Act,” is being contested on the grounds that it violates the state Constitution’s protections for free speech and privacy.
In the wake of Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and a decade marked by attacks on political figures—the security risks of effectively doxxing political donors loom large in the case.
If upheld, the law would force nonprofit groups that weigh in on ballot measures or reference incumbents near an election to publicly disclose their donors—not just names and amounts, but also home addresses and employers—in a searchable database.
In today’s climate of escalating political violence—from death threats and swatting to vandalism, arson, and even assassinations—a database like this could essentially become a “hit list.”
In a press release the Goldwater Institute explained its position stating, “While proponents of the Voters’ Right to Know Act say they’re simply combatting so-called ‘dark money’ in politics, it is clear to Goldwater and its clients — the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and individual donors — that their real intent is to intimidate their political opponents into silence.”
“Arizona’s Proposition 211 is as un-American as it is dangerous. No one should be exposed to retaliation or violence simply for supporting causes they believe in,” said Jon Riches, Goldwater’s Vice President of Litigation. “The law also violates Arizona’s Constitution, which provides stronger protections for freedom of speech and privacy than even the U.S. Constitution. That’s why we at the Goldwater Institute believe the Arizona Supreme Court will ultimately strike down Proposition 211.”
Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi added, “They’re afraid of the activist organizations out there. They’re afraid of politicians and others that want to exact retaliation because they simply support a position or belief that they disagree.”
Mussi characterized the law as “a dangerous threat to our right to free speech and association.”
“As drafted, the law can be used to unconstitutionally target and harass private citizens, including our organization and our supporters,” Mussi stated. “We are confident that the Supreme Court will recognize the danger this law poses and will rule in our favor.”
In a statement to AZ Free News in May, Mussi elaborated on the potential for political intimidation: “Both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution guarantee citizens the right to speak freely, which includes the right to not be forced to speak. Prop 211 not only violates this right for donors by silencing them from supporting causes they believe in but impairs the speech of nonprofits like ours as well.”
Peter Gentala, President of the Center for Arizona Policy, stated in a press release that Proposition 211 “creates an atmosphere of fear among those who support nonprofits that engage in the most pressing issues in Arizona today.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 13, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, announced this week it has asked the City of Sedona to “review and revise” the Sedona Police Department’s warning shot policy. The group says the policy could have officers committing felonies.
The organization requested the review and revision of the SPD policy, according to a letter released by Judicial Watch Southwest Projects Coordinator Mark Spencer, a 25-year veteran, former Phoenix police officer, and former President of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association.
In the letter, Spencer cited potential conflicts with A.R.S. §13-3107, known as Shannon’s Law, as well as standards set by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST).
Judicial Watch reported in its statement that the organization’s intervention began with a public records request (PRR) to Sedona City Manager Annette Spickard regarding the SPD’s warning shot policy on July 28th. But according to the group, the request for records was not fully complied with:
“Judicial Watch sought various SPD documents, including training records, policy manuals, and communications related to the use of warning shots. However, many of the requested documents were not provided or available.
The responsive documents included 26 emails, which revealed a timeline of events and issues related to the warning shot policy. Notably, on April 18, 2023, an email indicated that a revised policy manual for SPD was under consideration, which included and allowed warning shots. Subsequent emails showed ongoing evaluations and suggestions for policy revisions, with some recommendations to exclude warning shots.”
According to Shannon’s Law, “A person who with criminal negligence discharges a firearm within or into the limits of any municipality is guilty of a class 6 felony.”
Judicial Watch cautioned that the use of a warning shot under current SPD policy could constitute a criminally negligent discharge under Shannon’s Law, making the officer following the policy guilty of a class 6 felony.
In the text of the letter, Spencer noted that among the 26 responsive emails received by Judicial Watch, “An email indicated that a revised policy manual for SPD was under consideration. “Warning shots” were acknowledged, included, and allowed in the policy. Within this email, it was also stated, “Officers are taught during their academy training about reasonable force, deadly force, warning shots (emphasis added), when and how to use non-deadly weapons, and when and how to use deadly force and firearms.”
Conversely, in a later email from Sedona’s outside legal counsel, Eric Edwards, policy revisions were submitted for the SPD officer’s manual addressing the use of “Warning Shots.” Edwards reiterated in the formal police policy that “Officers are taught during their academy training about… Warning Shots.” He then makes the following change in policy by suggesting, “Officers will not…Generally, fire warning shots.”
Spencer concluded, “Judicial Watch expressed concerns that the current policy may conflict with A.R.S. §13-3107, also known as Shannon’s Law, which could classify the use of warning shots as a class 6 felony. Additionally, they questioned the accuracy and consistency of the policy with AZPOST (State law enforcement certification agency) and other law enforcement standards. Judicial Watch has requested the City Council and City Manager to consider revising the SPD policy to eliminate the use of warning shots. They have indicated their intention to make a formal complaint to the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST) and the Arizona Attorney General’s office if the policy is not revised.”
As of this report, the City of Sedona has made no official statement regarding the Judicial Watch request.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
