Arizona State University’s (ASU) College Republicans United (CRU) pledged to donate half of their funds raised to Kyle Rittenhouse’s defamation lawsuit against the media, if one occurs, shortly after Rittenhouse’s acquittal on Friday. Rittenhouse has been taking non-degree online classes with ASU since October. Following his acquittal, a spokesman for Rittenhouse reported that he plans to pursue a nursing degree at ASU.
“Half of all funds collected for the rest of the year will be donated to the Kyle Rittenhouse lawsuit against the media,” tweeted ASU CRU. “We hope this action will teach a lesson to those who profit from lies and that Kyle has a comfortable life from this ordeal.”
Half of all funds collected for the rest of the year will be donated to the Kyle Rittenhouse lawsuit against the media. – We hope this action will teach a lesson to those who profit from lies and that Kyle has a comfortable life from this ordeal. https://t.co/vD7obvBNzi
This won’t be the first time ASU CRU has funded Rittenhouse’s legal efforts. Immediately following Rittenhouse’s arrest last August, ASU CRU pledged half of their funds raised that year to his legal defense. Rittenhouse faced five charges related to murder, attempted murder, and reckless endangerment. Based on the jury’s decision, Rittenhouse exercised self-defense and abided by Wisconsin’s gun laws.
Five days into their fundraising efforts, ASU CRU donated $5,000 to Rittenhouse’s defense. ASU CRU thanked the “screaming liberals” for helping their effort go viral, tagging ASU’s newspaper, State Press, as well as The Arizona Republic and The Hill.
In response to Twitter outrage over ASU CRU’s fundraiser, ASU tweeted that it didn’t endorse or support the effort and that the university would be meeting with the club to speak about it. Over a year later, ASU CRU provided an update – contrary to ASU’s promise, they reportedly never spoke with the club.
Earlier this month, the club updated that they donated a total of $14,000 to Rittenhouse’s defense. The other $14,000 reportedly went toward establishing CRUs in Iowa and California, as well as another Arizona university: University of Arizona (UArizona). ASU CRU spokespersons also told the Arizona Daily Independent that they were able to send student representatives to conferences and conventions, as well as provide legal protection for students who won’t comply with their university’s COVID-19 mandates.
“Half of all funds collected this semester for Republicans United will be donated to 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse legal defense fund. He does not deserve to have his entire life destroyed because of the actions of violent anarchists during a lawless riot,” wrote ASU CRU.
Half of all funds collected this semester for Republicans United will be donated to 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse legal defense fund. He does not deserve to have his entire life destroyed because of the actions of violent anarchists during a lawless riothttps://t.co/vD7obvkcaIpic.twitter.com/2ZQN2OORmj
Fox News host Tucker Carlson teased a trailer for his documentary on Rittenhouse shortly after his acquittal. The trailer featured original clips of Rittenhouse describing his experience in the year after the incident, ending with an exclusive statement from Rittenhouse as he was driven away from the courthouse following his acquittal.
“The jury reached the correct verdict: self defense is not illegal. I believe they came to the correct verdict, and I’m glad everything went well. It’s been a rough journey but we made it through it – we made it through the hard part,” said Rittenhouse.
In addition to the upcoming documentary, Rittenhouse will appear on one of Carlson’s other shows, “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” on Monday.
It doesn’t appear that the establishment college Republicans group, ASU College Republicans, donated to Rittenhouse’s legal defense. They also didn’t post a celebration of Rittenhouse’s acquittal.
ASU CRU split from ASU College Republicans in 2018. The former reportedly took issue with the latter’s approach to governance and perspective on the Republican Party, claiming that the latter was more “establishment conservative” which they likened to the “John McCain branch of the Republican Party” – or, as some would call it, the “Republican In Name Only” (RINO) branch. ASU College Republicans refuted that characterization.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
City of Phoenix employees will have until January 18, 2022, to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. The new policy doesn’t offer an exemption for those working remotely. The city explained in its letter to employees that it was complying with President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal contractors, due to the number of contracts held by the city.
As thanks for their compliance, the city will give the vaccinated employee $75. The cash perk was initially used as an incentive this past year. Assuming every one of their over 14,000 employees remains on staff and gets vaccinated, then the city will hand out a total of over a million dollars. As of their latest reports, the city has handed out over 6,900 of their compliance cash.
Phoenix Councilman Sal DiCiccio warned in an interview with KTAR that this mandate would only make the city lose more police officers at a time when their law enforcement is critically manned. He also challenged the city’s rationale that a sweeping mandate was required because they receive federal funds. DiCiccio asserted that the city of Phoenix isn’t a federal contractor.
“I’ve already sent a letter to the city manager asking him to identify exactly which contracts the city of Phoenix has,” said DiCiccio. “I can tell you police, fire and some other personnel with the city of Phoenix are not contractors – that’s a bunch of BS.”
DiCiccio also insisted that the main point of the mandate was to target first responders.
“It’s meant to attack them at various levels: [to] attack them personally, attack their families and now go after them this way,” said DiCiccio.
The councilman’s remarks reflect on the fact that the lowest vaccination rates in the Valley are among police officers and firefighters. Tucson’s vaccine mandate for all city employees – announced in August – hit those first responders the hardest.
As the city revealed this latest policy, companies around Phoenix have been advertising that they are hiring with “no vaccine required.”
City employees may request religious or medical exemptions by December 31 – New Year’s Eve.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Arizona Secretary of State’s Office announced last week that enough valid signatures were turned in to let voters decide next year whether they support substantially reduced income tax rates set to take effect in 2022 or want to maintain the current higher rates.
But whether voters can actually weigh in on such issues in the November 2022 General Election is something the Arizona Supreme Court will likely be asked to decide.
In June, Gov. Doug Ducey signed an overhaul of Arizona’s income tax system as part of the $12.8 billion budget packet approved by the Legislature. It changes the state’s current five-tier income tax rates -from 2.59 percent up to a 4.5 percent base- to a two-tier plan with lower rates in 2022.
The legislation which created the new tax structure could even trigger a single 2.5 percent tax rate as soon as 2023 if Arizona’s revenues meet certain levels.
The flat tax system also addresses the impacts of Prop 208, which voters narrowly passed last year. Known as the Invest in Education Act, Prop 208 imposed an additional 3.5 percent tax surcharge effective 2021 on any income above $250,000 for a single filers or $500,000 for joint filers. The surcharge is on top of the current 4.5 percent base rate.
The revenue from the surcharge is slated to be used for public K-12 schools, but it does so by kicking Arizona’s highest earners to an 8 percent income tax. This put businesses in the state at a competitive disadvantage with Texas and Nevada which have no income tax, while New Mexico has a top rate of 4.9 percent.
Because the 3.5 percent Prop 208 surcharge was put into law by voters, state lawmakers could not directly undo it. Instead, the new flat tax rate plan would top out at 4.5 percent by absorbing the 3.5 percent surcharge.
However, supporters of Invest in Ed, now known as Invest in Arizona, want to void the new tax rate law despite the fact all Arizonans would share in the projected $1 billion savings. The group is trying to kill the flat rate plan by utilizing a provision of the Arizona Constitution which gives citizens 90 days after the legislative sessions ends to attempt to refer new state laws for voter approval.
Last week Invest in Arizona successfully submitted enough valid petition signatures to get the matter on the ballot next November as Proposition 307. In response to the petition drive, Ducey’s spokesman has continued to champion the new income tax structure, which would ultimately be the lowest flat tax in the country if state revenue targets are met.
“It keeps Arizona competitive,” said C.J. Karamargin. “We are returning tax dollars to the citizens of Arizona.”
Whether new laws dealing with state revenues such as income taxes are eligible for voter referendum has never been ruled on by a state court.
A lawsuit by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club argues that the Arizona Constitution actually prohibits issues related to the support and maintenance of state government to be referred to the ballot. A decision by Judge Katherine Cooper of the Maricopa County Superior Court is expected any day.
Whichever side loses in Cooper’s court is expected to appeal, with the Arizona Supreme Court expected to hear the case eventually.
Another wrinkle in the tax saga is that the Arizona Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that Prop 208 can be challenged on the basis of the state’s constitutional spending limits for K-12 schools. The justices recently sent the matter back to the Maricopa County Superior Court for additional arguments although the case is expected to be back at the Arizona Supreme Court early next year.
The three young activist students at Arizona State University (ASU) who verbally accosted and harassed two peers for being white, cisgender males in “their” multicultural space may face disciplinary action for violating ASU’s Code of Conduct.
Mastaani Qureshi, Sarra Tekola, and Miriam “Mimi” Araya were identified as the women verbally accosting their peers. AZ Free News discovered that, at the time of the incident, the space hadn’t been officially established as a multicultural center – something that the three women attested to in a subsequent interview and statement about the incident.
According to reporting from State Press, Qureshi, Tekola, and Araya did violate ASU’s Code of Conduct. Specifics of those charges were revealed in an email obtained by Campus Reform – the three female students were charged with violating two policies related to disruption and stalking or harassing:
· 5-308 F-11: Interfering with or disrupting university or university-sponsored activities, including but not limited to classroom related activities, studying, teaching, research, intellectual or creative endeavor, administration, service or the provision of communication, computing or emergency services.
· 5-308 F-20: Stalking or engaging in repeated or significant behavior toward another individual, whether in person, in writing, or through electronic means, after having been asked to stop, or doing so to such a degree that a reasonable person, subject to such contact, would regard the contact as unwanted.
Additionally, one of the students (likely Tekola, because she was the only one of the three students arrested in relation to 2020 protests) was charged with an additional Code of Conduct violation:
· 5-308 F-26: Commission of any offense prohibited by state or federal law or local ordinance.
That email relaying the specific charges came from religious studies associate professor Leah Sarat. She urged her colleagues to sign an internal letter asking ASU to drop the Code of Conduct charges because they affected “one of their own.” Sarat was likely referring to Qureshi, a history and justice studies undergraduate, who also served as the alum liaison for the leadership sorority Omega Phi Alpha and co-president of ASU’s Women’s Coalition.
Both Araya and Tekola were graduate students. Araya, a Black Lives Matter (BLM) Phoenix policy minister, served as vice president of ASU’s Black Graduate Student Association, and was working toward her doctorate in justice studies in the School of Social Transformation. Tekola was the co-minister of activism for Black Lives Matter (BLM) Phoenix Metro and a PhD Candidate in ASU’s School of Sustainability.
In the request letter, Sarat also accused the two male students of promoting systemic racism for their attire and lunch choices. The two male students were, according to Sarat, “racist” for displaying a “Did Not Vote For Biden” t-shirt, Chik-fil-A cups, and a “Police Lives Matter” sticker.
“We consider it shameful and cruel that instead of protecting students who are clearly vulnerable and being targeted, the university is siding with white natoinalist media and downplaying the incident as an isolated disagreement between students,” asserted Sarat. “To be clear, this is a moment when colorblind language and emphasis on equivalence actually fosters systemic inequality by targeting and disciplining BIPOC students.”
Qureshi, Tekola, and Araya are reportedly being represented by The People’s Law Firm.
The ASU Dean of Students may determine sanctions for Code of Conduct violations. If a disciplinary sanction is imposed, the students may appeal for a hearing before a University Hearing Board. Based on the board’s assessment, the Senior Vice President for Educational Outreach and Student Services will then make a final decision on sanctions.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
One of the last 500 first-edition copies of the U.S. Constitution printed in 1787 was sold at auction Thursday night in New York, shattering estimates put forth by experts who had placed the historic document’s value at $20 million.
The “Goldman’s Constitution” as the copy is known is one of only 13 originals believed to still exist. It was purchased by real estate developer S. Howard Goldman in 1988 for $165,000 and most recently belonged to the Dorothy Tapper Goldman Foundation, which owns dozens of rare historical documents from America’s Colonial and Revolutionary eras.
Earlier this month it was announced that ConstitutionDAO, a Ethereum-based cryptocurrency group, would be bidding for the document. Leading up to the auction, the group publicized its desire to find a partner ensure the Constitution would be displayed in a way that made it accessible to the public.
Last week ConstitutionDAO claimed it had already raised $32 million via crowdfunding, which many experts believed would ensure the group was top bidder. But that honor went instead to Ken Griffin, the billionaire CEO of Chicago-based Citadel LLC, a hedge fund. His bid was $41 million ($43.2 million with fees).
The entire bidding took less than 15 minutes. Not only was Griffin’s bid the highest ever for a copy of the U.S. Constitution, but Sotheby’s says it is the top price ever paid for a printed historical document.
Griffin, 53, announced that his copy of the U.S. Constitution will be loaned to the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, Arkansas. The museum’s permanent collection features American art from the Colonial era to the contemporary period.
There are some questions as to why the cryptocurrency group was unable to exceed Griffin’s bid, given that some insiders reported ConstitutionDAO, which stands for Decentralised Autonomous Organisation, had in fact raised $47 million by the start of bidding. Refunds will be issued to the nearly 17,500 individual donors, according to the group, which took looked on the positive side of its endeavor.
“This is the largest crowdfund for a physical object that we are aware of—crypto or fiat,” according to the group’s website. “We are so incredibly grateful to have done this together with you all and are still in shock that we even got this far.”
The group also noted Thursday’s auction was the first time Sotheby’s worked with a DAO community.
“We have educated an entire cohort of people around the world – from museum curators and art directors to our grandmothers asking us what eth is when they read about us in the news – about the possibilities of web3,” the statement reads. “And, on the flip side, many of you have learned about what it means to steward an asset like the U.S. constitution across museums and collections, or watched an art auction for the first time.”
A father recently discovered that two English teachers at Paradise Valley Unified School District (PVUSD) assigned a book containing porn and sexually explicit material, “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed” by Jon Ronson, as part of an advanced placement (AP) 11th grade summer reading list. The greater theme of Ronson’s book was the revival of public shaming with the advent of the internet, and is rife with lewd stories and profanity. In addition to describing pornographic acts at length, the book also details bestiality and references kink.
The father, Thomas Morton, discovered that the initial assignment offered no content warnings or alternatives to the book. Instead, the assignment included a note suggesting that the students research the author. Immediate information about the book doesn’t indicate any of its sexual or pornographic content. It was only five weeks after receiving the initial assignment that his then-15-year-old daughter was given an alternative option in an email from her principal. That update didn’t offer any indication that the book was inappropriate.
The initial assignment told the students that upon returning to school in August, they would be given a timed writing prompt on “how the author incorporates humor along with informational text to achieve his purpose” in which they would have to quote directly from the book. The assignment also revealed that the book was available in the school library.
In an interview on Friday with Conservative Circus, Morton told radio host James T. Harris how he discovered the book.
“It came to light to me after my daughter and I discussed the book. She was too embarrassed to tell me the pornographic details, but she told me the book was generally about the Twitter mob publicly shaming people,” explained Morton. “I saw more and more things that concerned me, and I was pushed to have to really try to draw attention to this when I got to the part about a guy – uh – we’ll say impregnating his dog himself.”
Morton promptly wrote a letter to PVUSD Governing Board to contest the book on November 1. That letter is embedded below.
READER WARNING – the following letter contains graphic and explicit summaries and excerpts of the contested book: [READ Letter to Dr. Bales PV District Nov 1 2021 HERE]
According to Morton’s interview, the teacher who assigned the material refused to answer questions about why the book was assigned and whether he’d read the book himself. The English teachers who assigned the material, Brian Morgan and Jay Parizek, teach at Horizon High School (HHS). The principal who sent the alternative assignment email after 5 weeks was HHS Principal Linda Ihnat. Neither the teachers or the principal has reportedly faced any disciplinary action for the assignment.
Morton’s further inquiries into the matter yielded another discovery: this was the second year that the same book was assigned. Following a mother’s complaint about the book in 2019, PVUSD Assistant Superintendent Dr. Dan Courson promised to prohibit the book from being assigned in the future.
Arizona law prohibits the distribution of pornographic or obscene material to children. According to A.R.S. 13-3506, it is a class 4 felony for a person to knowingly and “recklessly furnish, present, provide, make available, give, lend, show, advertise or distribute to minors any item that is harmful to minors.”
During the PVUSD Governing Board meeting on November 4, several days after Morton’s letter to the board, HHS English Department head Rachel Prince defended her fellow English teachers as dedicated individuals committed to reaching their students “in new ways” and creating classrooms that are “inviting and inspiring.” It is unclear whether Prince broached the topic of the contested book – the board cut her mic once her allotted 3 minutes of public comment were up.
“They have, as all teachers, been tasked with preparing their students academically, socially, and emotionally for a world that they will face after graduation and that grows more complicated every day,” said Prince.
According to emails obtained by AZ Free News PVUSD Superintendent Dr. Troy Bales claimed that the assignments were “a mistake.” During the PVUSD Governing Board meeting on Thursday, Bales apologized for the book. The superintendent said that it was inappropriate and explained that it had been assigned despite past instructions to teachers to not reassign it. He advised parents to read an apology and explanation letter he’d sent last week, which also detailed PVUSD action steps to rectifying the issue such as reinforcing and expanding notification procedures for parents and administration concerning books not included as approved curriculum.
“Though we believe it’s important to balance preparing AP students for college-level academics, it’s equally important to provide age-appropriate materials and coursework,” said Bales. “Moving forward, we have immediate and short-term steps to respond appropriately. Some of those steps were described in the letter and I encourage you to read it.”
In public comments at the meeting, one father excoriated the board for not taking action on the unapproved, contested curriculum when they’d promised to do so last year. He shared how his own daughter took it upon herself to redact an assigned book for fear that her younger sister would read it.
“The books that we’re bringing in are filth. And there’s no reason for it. I should not have a daughter of mine be crossing out material in a book. And the reason why she crossed it out was not for herself, because she’s old enough to handle and learn things that she thought was inappropriate – it’s because she thought her younger sister was going to grab it,” said . “What are we doing? When our children are having to police the books for their younger siblings. It’s a shame. And these books should never have been there. They’ve never been approved.”
A mother urged accountability for Morgan, Parizek, and all other teachers assigning explicit material to be fired and investigated.
“My heart is breaking for these kids, and I’m just wondering: how did we get here? Our job as adults, parents, educators is to protect children, educate them, love them,” said the mother. “Giving porn to a child is grooming and it’s a crime. I’m calling for any teacher that knowingly gives explicit material to children to be fired and for a criminal investigation to take place.”
Morton said that he will be removing his child from Morgan and Parizek’s class, filing complaints to the police and the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) about both teachers and the principal involved.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
