Altadeña Middle School 6th grade English Language Arts (ELA) teacher Sara Adams was recorded teaching her students about gender identity and not trusting their parents on the subject. Adams said to her students that those who tell them otherwise, like their parents or other family members, are part of the “older generations,” intimating that their elders’ teachings of right and wrong concerning gender were a “hard line.”
“So, now keep in mind that our society has changed somewhat in ways for the better, okay? No longer for most people is that a hard-drawn line,” said Adams. “Ok? That line gets blurred. There are still people in our society, the older generations, who, that’s the hard line. That’s how they grew up. That’s their mentality. You don’t cross that line. You are a boy, you are a girl, those are your roles, you know what you are supposed to do.”
Adams encouraged her class to reject that hard line. She said it was a “good thing” that the hard line is no longer permanent, and relayed that the hard line would disappear completely after the older generations die off.
“But as your generations [are] coming around and the generations that are gonna come after you. We are hoping that that line completely disappears. And there is no line. And you are free to be whoever it is who you want to be. And you dress and act and do whatever it is that you want to do because that is who you are,” said Adams. “Sometimes it’s a hard line for some. Sometimes it’s a faint line. Sometimes you can see the line’s been blurred and then someone comes and redraws it. That’s where we’re still at.”
Adams asked her students about society’s standards for boys’ preferences and behaviors. Children in the class respond that boys can’t wear dresses, play with dolls, or “be pretty,” and that they were expected to only play sports. Adams insinuated to the children that their parents’ teachings on right or wrong concerning gender were inaccurate.
“What else boys aren’t you supposed to do? And it might be that you heard this from family members,” said Adams.
Adams expanded on one student’s notion that boys can’t “be pretty” by saying that meant boys couldn’t wear makeup, style their hair, or wear nails. When a student asked why a boy would do those things, Adams replied that certain people desired them and added quickly that boys shouldn’t.
“Because some people like that. It’s who they are. But boys aren’t supposed to do that,” said Adams.
Then Adams asked the boys if they were supposed to cry. When the boys respond “yes,” Adams rebutted that “society says no.” She then asked the boys if they were supposed to show their emotions. Even when some of the boys respond “yes,” Adams interjected: “No, rub some dirt on it — you’re fine.” A little boy can be heard crying: it’s unclear whether he was serious or not.
“Don’t show your feelings. That’s a girl thing. Aw, you little sissy! Isn’t that all you’ve heard before as boys? Don’t cry! There’s no crying, you’re a boy!” said Adams.
Adams and her fellow teachers in Kyrene School District (KSD) appear to have shaped the students to be in agreement with their teachings already. Several of Adams’ middle school students came to the teacher’s defense on social media, both of whom put gender identity descriptions in their bios. Both students admitted that the incident didn’t occur during their class period.
One Twitter user who identifies as a “merman,” @rraae7, claimed that Adams was their ELA teacher. The user claimed that Adams was responding to a book in their curriculum, insisting that she was an “amazing teacher” and that many of the user’s peers supported what Adams was teaching.
“This is my ELA teacher. She was responding directly to the curriculum and explaining to the class (not my period) how people view the kid in this book and how things were viewed at the time. That’s exactly why [in] this recording she said that your grandparents have probably told you this,” wrote the user. “This is so dumb that you guys jump straight to assuming, this is a middle school kid recording this, you have no clue what they are trying to do??!! Ms. Adams is an amazing teacher and I know MANY people could support this. I can’t believe somebody would do this.”
this is my ela teacher. she was responding directly to the curriculum and explaining to the class (not my period) how people view the kid in this book and how things were viewed at the time. that’s exactly why i’m this recording she said that ur grandparents have probably told-
Another user who identifies as “she/her,” @Lauren_NotEmo, agreed that the point of the assignment was to discuss gender identity issues.
“Hi I’m Lauren and Mrs Adams is also my teacher. She was talking about this in class and this was about the book that we were learning in class,” wrote the other user. “I think this is ridiculous and not called for but this was not my period also when this happened.”
Hi I’m Lauren and Mrs adam’s is also my teacher she was talking about this in class and this was about the book that we were learning in class I think this is ridiculous and not called for but this was not my period also when this happened.
It also appears that Adams’ district would be on board with her use of class time. KSD submitted a “Visioning Survey” to parents concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), culture, Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT), and Social Emotional Learning (SEL). As AZ Free News has reported, SEL and this version of CRT maintain congruous teachings with Critical Race Theory.
@kyrenesupt is the worst. Today we were got a survey & you can tell they are going woke. They are working on a policy for their strategic plan to define culture, equity, diversity, etc. it’s clear by their intent & language these words don’t mean what they used too. pic.twitter.com/ebVcH4yrOD
State lawmakers continue to propose ways to rectify Arizona’s severe healthcare workforce shortage, including a bipartisan vote on House Bill 2691 to increase collaboration among the state’s education and healthcare communities.
Under HB2691, five new healthcare related programs would be established to promote various training efforts in an effort to address an ongoing shortage for nurses and other medical professionals. The programs are:
The Arizona Nurse Education Investment Program which would increase the capacity of nursing education programs in Arizona to increase the number of all levels of nurses graduating from the state’s nursing education programs. This is intended to address Arizona’s yearslong nursing shortage.
An Arizona Department of Health Services grant program to expand the capacity of preceptor training for nurse students and new nurse graduates. This would ensure an increase in instructors available to handle expanded nursing programs.
The Nurse Transition to Practice Program to better support and develop new nurses, provide evidence-based professional development, and more rapidly accelerate the novice nurse to a competent nurse.
A grant program to encourage and support more preceptorships in Arizona for the training and development of graduate students wishing to become physicians, advanced practice registered nurses, dentists, and physician assistants.
A pilot program to develop and expand capacity of behavioral health programs at community colleges. This would include coverage of tuition, fees, and related educational expenses for eligible students.
HB2691 also seeks to make it less difficult for military members who wish to receive credit in a healthcare education program for experience and skills developed during their service.
The bill passed its Third Reading in the House on Thursday with a 56 to 3 vote and has been transmitted to the Arizona Senate for consideration.
Two House Republicans voted against a bill to prevent banks from discriminating against vendors or customers for their political affiliations or values determined by a social credit score. HB2656 failed 28-31; the bill sponsor, State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) voted against the bill alongside two of his Republican colleagues with track records for voting against bills supporting Republican Party values: State Representative Joel John (R-Buckeye) and State Representative Michelle Udall (R-Mesa). Hoffman changed his vote in order to file a motion to reconsider the bill within 14 days’ time, which was approved.
John’s primary argument for not supporting the bill concerned the fact that he doesn’t engage in politics outside of the legislature, and that he doesn’t know of any real examples of banks discriminating against individuals for their affiliations or values. In doing so, John criticized his cousin, who reportedly called John to urge him to support the bill.
“I’ve asked the sponsor to give me real world examples of why this bill is needed, and I didn’t get that. I even got a call from my cousin, who doesn’t live in my district, telling me that this bill is needed and to pass it right now and I said ‘why is it a problem man? Help me understand,’” said John. “For those of us who happen to be in this chamber, but don’t live, eat, and breathe politics 24/7, when I’m not in this chamber I’m out in a remote area working on some irrigation project, but my cousin said this is going to negatively affect farmers. This is going to affect our community, and I said, ‘Oh wow. Would you please do me a favor and talk to some of those guys as to why this is a problem. That would really help me. So, I never did hear back.”
One Republican representative rebutted to John’s assertion that there weren’t any real-world examples of this discrimination occurring in Arizona. State Representative Jeff Weninger (R-Chandler) relayed how multiple gun vendors statewide informed him that banks and financial services like Paypal won’t facilitate credit card transactions for items like guns due to their policies.
“In my points, I’m not going to throw my cousin under the bus like somebody just did a minute ago,” said Weninger. “[Banking and other financial transaction discrimination] is something that is gaining steam and everywhere I go and talk to people, more and more people are knowing about it. But pretty soon it could be too late and have already run us over as a state.”
Hoffman explained that his bill was prompted by the rise of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG): an enforcement method for authoritarianism advocated heavily by powerful globalist organizations like the World Economic Forum (WEF). The ESG concept is a part of a movement called “The Great Reset:” a goal to instill “stakeholder capitalism,” aka corporatism, a fascist rule globally. Hoffman explained that the ESG factor worked as a social credit score.
“It is an inside-outside strategy designed to force companies and individuals to adopt a woke and oftentimes globalist agenda primarily embraced by those in the ruling class. They do this by assigning an ESG score or sometimes known as a ‘social impact criteria score,’” said Hoffman.
Hoffman added that the legislation was a moral imperative, citing the Canadian government freezing protestors’ bank accounts and financial apps in order to end their Freedom Convoy.
“Think it couldn’t happen in America? Think again. The top five banks in the US — the very same banks that US taxpayers bailed out in 2009 to the tune of 30 trillion dollars — have all admitted to using ESG scores to make decisions about customers. This means that if they deem your small business isn’t green enough, woke enough, or compliant enough, they’ll lower your ESG score which could hurt or eliminate your ability to access banking services, revolving capital, financing, and much more,” said Hoffman. “ESG discrimination is a freight train barreling down the tracks at the American people and it’s effects will be devastating, which is why I’m fighting like hell to protect the people of Arizona and stop this disgusting, anti-American practice dead in its tracks.”
This isn’t the first issue in which John and Udall didn’t agree with their fellow Republicans. Earlier this month, John voted with Democrats attempting to kill a bill expanding parental rights.
John and Udall are also part of the Republican trio that killed a bill to expand school choice last year. Instead, John supported a bill this session to require additional testing requirements to access school choice, backed by the other two trio members: Udall and Joanne Osborne (R-Goodyear).
Last year, John voted against a bill to require disclosure of personal information on early ballot affidavits. He and Udall also voted alongside House Democrats to force a vote on a resolution allowing illegal immigrants who’ve resided in Arizona at least two years and graduated from an Arizona high school to receive in-state tuition. That measure will appear on the ballot this November.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Both House Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly approved a bill allowing courts to order forfeiture of substitute assets equivalent to property acquired through the crime, directly traceable to property acquired through the crime, or property used to commit or assist in the crime. No state representative voted against the bill.
HB2695 also stipulated that the government may return property to the owner and that parties may file for a restitution or racketeering lien.
House Speaker Pro Tempore Travis Grantham (R-Gilbert), the bill sponsor, explained during the House Judiciary Committee that the intent of the bill was to protect the innocent, such as theft victims from having their stolen property used to pay for lawyers, spent on houses, or given to family members for safekeeping.
Committee Chairman Walt Blackman (R-Snowflake) concurred, adding that despite the legislation appearing to be mere technicality, it would end up helping a lot of people.
Last year, Grantham introduced similar civil asset forfeiture legislation to ensure property seized is evidence of a crime, abandoned, subject to forfeiture, or illegal for the owner to possess. After receiving near-unanimous support of the bill in both the House and Senate, Governor Doug Ducey signed that bill into law. The intent of the legislation was to ensure Arizonans not charged or convicted of a crime don’t experience seizure of their property.
Prior to Grantham’s legislation, Arizona law enforcement could seize property through civil asset forfeiture without charging anyone for a crime, so long as they have reason to believe the property was involved in a crime.
One recent example of this occurred with Melinda Harris, the client of Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute. Police took Harris’ vehicle in March of 2015. Although Harris wasn’t guilty of a crime and faced no charges, police suspected her son of selling drugs and included her car in their investigation because he borrowed it at the time of the suspected crime. Civil forfeiture laws enable police to confiscate property they believe was involved in criminal activity.
Last December, Harris testified to Congress about the reality of civil asset forfeiture, recounting how she was forced to wait six years and ultimately needed the assistance of the Phoenix think tank to recover her car. The Goldwater Institute intervened on Harris’ behalf in early March of last year; days later, the county returned Harris’ car and she was able to give it to her granddaughter as a graduation gift.
During her testimony to Congress, Harris offered insight on an average citizen’s experience with civil forfeiture. According to Harris, she allowed her son to borrow her car in 2015. Her son informed her later that same day that she should come get her car. When she arrived at her car, a group of at least five officers approached and informed her that they were seizing her car on suspicion of its involvement in criminal activity.
“They had no warrant, they didn’t show me any paperwork, I never got a receipt for my car. Basically they told me they were taking my car and that’s what they did,” explained Harris.
Even when Harris went to the police station the next day to follow up on the car, officers wouldn’t give her any information. All they would tell her was that an “ongoing investigation” was underway. Then, Harris explained that about six years passed before she heard anything back about her car, though she stated her son was murdered in 2018.
Police finally sent Harris a letter in October 2020 declaring that the car would be kept unless she answered them and retained a lawyer. By the time the letter arrived, the response window shrunk from 23 days to two weeks. Harris said she couldn’t afford a lawyer to respond, much less one that could put in a request for more time to obtain a lawyer. Additionally, certain options for legal aid weren’t available to her due to the pandemic.
“If it wasn’t for the Goldwater Institute taking my case pro-bono, I wouldn’t have gotten my car back. Fortunately for me they did a great job,” said Harris. “I don’t think people should be allowed to police for profit. I think that they should have a better burden of proof. And if they’re going to do it, they should be held accountable for how the money is spent. I really think it should go back into the community from which it was taken and do some good there. As opposed to lavish parties and trips to wherever.”
Goldwater client Malinda Harris tells Congress how the gov't stole her car:
"They had no warrant. They didn’t show me any paperwork. I never got a receipt for my car. They basically told me they were taking the car, and that’s what they did.” #stopcivilforfeiturepic.twitter.com/FH4qcW7iX0
Only four states abolished civil forfeiture entirely: North Carolina, New Mexico, Nebraska, and Maine. Although Arizona hasn’t abolished civil forfeiture, the legislature did institute some reforms through Grantham’s legislation. Arizona law now requires that an individual be convicted and that the state must show clear and convincing evidence. It also eliminated constructive seizure, repealed uncontested forfeiture, established post-deprivation hearings for the accused to seek release of property prior to judgment, and set a maximum value of forfeited property. However, the reform does allow officers to seize property without a court process if they have probable cause and believe that a court order delay would frustrate seizure.
When Governor Doug Ducey signed the reform into law, he published a corresponding letter written to Secretary of State Katie Hobbs. He expressed confidence that the reforms would protect constitutional rights while not inhibiting law enforcement’s efforts to handle crime.
“[This law] ensures that law enforcement has the ability to seize property pending forfeiture or if the property is evidence of a crime. It ensures that property being taken is truly connected to criminal activity while innocent persons have the ability to get their property back,” wrote Ducey.
The legal concepts behind civil asset forfeiture can be traced back to common law practices in England. However, the modern form of civil forfeiture used currently is relatively new; its growth spanned over the course of several different administrations and included both parties, from Nixon to Clinton.
Our current leadership was a primary cause for the introduction and expansion of modern civil asset forfeiture. President Joe Biden pushed for increased civil forfeiture for decades, often years ahead of his colleagues when it came to expansion efforts.
In 1981, when Biden was senator, he requested a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the assets accrued from forfeitures. The GAO report asserted that the government’s total forfeiture revenues weren’t “impressive” compared to the estimated billions that drug traffickers generated annually.
A month after receiving that report, Biden introduced a bill to expand forfeiture radically, by encompassing all profits and proceeds acquired indirectly or directly from crime. That bill never made it out of committee. He proposed this expansion about a decade after the groundwork for modern civil asset forfeiture was laid.
In 1970, about one year before Nixon called for the “war on drugs” officially, Congress passed laws enabling law enforcement to seize assets such as drugs and drug equipment, like the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (Sec. 511), the Organized Crime Control Act (Sec. 844), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO, Sec. 1963), Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE, or “Kingpin,” Sec. 848) Statute. Eight years later, Congress expanded on the scope of forfeiture to include suspected proceeds of drug trade with the Psychotropic Substances Act of 1978.
Congress expanded forfeiture’s scope again six years after that with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which Biden co-sponsored. On top of the actual illicit substances and equipment, law enforcement were permitted to seize property and assets. Not only could law enforcement seize those — they could keep them. The law also established a program that incentivized state law enforcement to seek forfeitures by offering them 80 percent of the monetary value of seized property and assets.
Then in 1986, Congress permitted law enforcement to seize any property equal to the forfeitable property through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act. Fourteen years later, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 imposed deadlines for property seizure notifications and established recovery procedures for property owners, but it also expanded the list of crimes that fell under civil forfeiture authority.
Harris wasn’t the only one who received her seized property shortly after the Goldwater Institute intervened.
Tucson handyman Kevin McBride also had his car seized by police after his girlfriend was accused of selling three grams of marijuana; a $25 crime. Although the charges were dropped against McBride’s girlfriend, the county refused to return McBride’s car unless he paid them $1,900. If he hadn’t, the county threatened to sell his car.
Mesa contractor Luis Garcia had fundraiser money seized after law enforcement raided his home based on an investigation into his adult son. The money was collected for a youth soccer tournament and in no way connected to any criminal activity.
Just as with Harris, McBride and Garcia were given back their property not long after the Goldwater Institute intervened.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Both the Arizona House and Senate passed bills this week to supply hundreds of millions for Arizona to finish construction on its portion of the border wall.
On Wednesday, the Arizona House passed along party lines State Senator Wendy Rogers’ (R-Flagstaff) SB1032, appropriating $700 million. Rogers estimated during the Senate Appropriations Committee that the amount would cover the approximately 17 miles of construction that remains.
“This is our chance to continue to protect ourselves because we aren’t having this built by the federal government and since we have purview over approximately 17 miles of the wall, this money would be appropriated to build that,” said Rogers.
Then on Thursday, the Arizona House passed its version, HB2317, along party lines on Thursday. State Representative John Kavanagh’s (R-Fountain Hills) bill appropriates $150 million in 2023 to finish the border wall. Kavanagh relayed during the House Appropriations Committee hearing some data given to him by Border Patrol: the number of crossings reportedly quadrupled over the last year.
“The border is in chaos and it’s out of control. The Border Patrol, besides needing more personnel, would be helped by some physical barriers which do in fact stop crossers, or at least funnel them, making the area that needs to be patrolled smaller,” said Kavanagh. “I think it’s a reasonable investment in Arizona’s security and safety.”
On a party line vote, the Arizona House approved HB2317. This bill sets aside money to build our own border wall. If the Feds won't protect us from this continued invasion, we will do it ourselves. ?? pic.twitter.com/dIHtZBEgCI
Passage of the bill comes weeks after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) projected that the border crisis would only worsen this year. This prediction concurred with the latest data on border crossings from Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
According to a report from AZ Free News this week, border patrol encountered almost 154,000 illegal immigrants crossing the border in January — the highest in over 20 years — with a low estimate of over 504,600 “gotaways” since President Joe Biden took office.
On Wednesday, the Arizona House approved a bill to expand open meeting law to require enough seating for anticipated attendance and that the agenda include the time when the public may have physical access to the meeting place. The vote panned out evenly along party lines: 31-28, with all Democrats opposed and all Republicans in favor of expanding open meetings.
The legislation, introduced by State Representative John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills), included a civil penalty for leaders of the public body violating the seating and access time requirements.
When addressing the House Government and Elections Committee, Kavanagh said that governing bodies should anticipate controversial issues that would cause sudden spikes in public attendance. Kavanagh cited the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) incident last year, in which the governing board closed the doors half an hour early to their meeting after enduring overwhelming public attendance the previous week. The legislator explained that he was turned away from attending the meeting because the room was full.
“This is simply meant to prevent a town council, or a school board, or anyone who has a controversial topic from suppressing public input by keeping the meeting in a tiny room so people can’t get in. And that happens,” said Kavanagh.
State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) noted that he’d experienced something similar to Kavanagh’s SUSD experience. Hoffman recounted how Higley Unified School District (HUSD) officials refused to allow public attendance beyond 20 percent room capacity, turning away individuals attempting to participate.
Committee Democrats expressed concern that governing bodies wouldn’t be able to anticipate public attendance adequately. Kavanagh said that it would be up to citizens to file open meetings complaints if they suspected government officials weren’t adhering to reasonable accommodations as directed in this bill. He noted that the League of Arizona Cities and Towns wasn’t in opposition to this bill.
Minority Leader Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen) explained in his “no” vote that the bill’s intent was “noble,” but failed to spell out how government officials should anticipate public attendance to accommodate seating. State Representative Sarah Liguori (D-Phoenix) argued that limiting public access to open meetings was a matter of safety, citing the presence of COVID-19 and violence at school board meetings.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
