Christmas cheer came a little early this year, in the form of 7-year-old Avery Bell – the elementary school girl hopes to raise enough money to buy Christmas toys for the 14,000 foster children of Arizona, and she needs your help. Avery and her family call their effort, “Fidgets for Fosters.”
Fidget toys are small, often colorful objects usually made from plastic or rubber. Apart from helping to pass the time, some studies indicate that fidget toys may alleviate stress and anxiety as well as help concentration. They may be purchased for as low as $1 – Avery’s goal is to raise at least $14,000. Greater awareness of fidget toys emerged with the rise in popularity of “fidget spinners” around 2017 – a metal or plastic toy with three arms that children can hold between two fingers and spin.
Avery told AZ Family that she’s confident these toys can bring joy to those in the foster care system, based on how they helped her this past summer.
“It would make them happy, and when they grow up, they can give them to another kid and to another kid and keep going, spreading joy all over the world,” said Avery.
Avery was inspired to buy gifts for Arizona’s foster care children after she broke her leg and was temporarily confined in a wheelchair over the summer. Avery’s father Andrew Schmid explained that’s when she discovered fidget toys, and how much joy they brought her.
“That made her think about foster kids; maybe they had challenging days, and maybe having fidget toys would help them get through their day and cope with some of their challenges,” shared Schmid.
According to Foster Focus Mag, the holidays are hard for many children in the system: they may not get to experience Christmas, may be missing their families, or they may be processing negative experiences from holidays past.
Readers can help Avery make Christmas come true by donating to her GoFundMe page here. As of press time, she was well over halfway to her goal.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Arizonans have one less voice in two congressional committees – the National Resources Committee and the Oversight and Reform Committee – after the House voted Wednesday to punish Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04) for posting an anime meme. The offending post photoshopped Gosar’s face on that of the protagonist featured in the intro of a popular anime series, Attack on Titan, attacking villains with the photoshopped faces of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14) and President Joe Biden. The anime meme also incorporated clips of the border crisis and Border Patrol.
The House also censured Gosar with their vote (House Resolution 789), breaking an 11-year dry spell since the last censure. The House decision, 223-207, was largely partisan with the exception of several congressmen generally considered “Republicans In Name Only” (RINOs) for their tendency to oppose Republican policies and stances. Those members were Congressman Adam Kizinger (R-IL-16) and Liz Cheney (R-WY); Congressman David Joyce (R-OH-14) opted to vote “present” only.
The 4 hours of debate over Gosar’s censure and committee removals consisted of the same arguments. Democrats and Republicans alike largely rehashed the same talking points other members of their party were making.
Democrats’ general argument was that Gosar’s meme fantasized and incited violence. They claimed Gosar’s post was the same kind of hate speech that led to incidents like the January 6 storming of the Capitol. Many reasoned that Gosar should be punished because employers fire employees, and schools suspend or expel students, over similar or lesser offenses. Democrats claimed that they were getting death threats because of the meme.
Aside from insisting that the entire debate was a waste of time better spent on putting out bigger fires – such as the border crisis or the mounting tensions with both Russia and China – Republicans warned that the resolution would set a bad precedent, in which the majority party could pick and remove at their leisure who may sit on committees. Nearly every Republican that took to the podium asserted that Democrats were acting hypocritically with a “rules for thee, but not for me” attitude, citing Democrats’ speech encouraging the protests as cities were destroyed during last year’s George Floyd riots.
Prior to Gosar, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA-14) faced similar threats of censure and committee removal for her past social media posts. Though Democrats dropped the censure threats, the latter punishment stuck. Greene was stripped for remarks she made prior to her election and even prior to her campaign, effectively limiting her influence from the start of her term. Greene also continues to accrue fines for refusing to mask up; according to Greene’s latest estimates, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has fined her over $60,500 and counting.
Gosar defended himself a little over midway through the House vote. He explained that the anime was intended to convey a policy battle regarding amnesty for illegal aliens, catering toward young voters “who are too often overlooked.” Gosar asserted that the meme wasn’t intended as a threat.
“[I] reject the mischaracterization and accusations from many in this body that the cartoon from my office is dangerous or threatening. It was not, and I reject the false narrative categorically,” explained Gosar. “I do not espouse violence towards anyone, I never have. It was not my purpose to make anyone upset. I voluntarily took the cartoon down, not because it was itself a threat but because some thought it was. Out of compassion for those who generally felt offense, I self-censored.”
WATCH: Complete remarks by Rep. Paul Gosar (@RepGosar) during House debate on his censure.
"I do not espouse violence towards anyone. I never have. It was not my purpose to make anyone upset." pic.twitter.com/a6JI4xxqgt
It appeared that the only member who could offer cultural context to the meaning and intent behind the anime meme was Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05).
“I’ve lived in Japan for several years! I speak Japanese. I read and write Japanese. This is an anime. Highly popular. Stylized. Intended to demonstrate the alienation people feel – particularly young people – in their cultures. Now, does anime have violence? Yes. It’s highly stylized violence,” explained Biggs. “It was not Mr. Gosar’s intention, I believe, to induce anyone to violence, and like he, I also condemn violence. I would ask you to reconsider further usurping and taking control of this body for political purposes because that’s what’s happening here today.”
Ocasio-Cortez said that the Republicans’ downplaying of the meme’s severity was “nihilism.” She also inferred that average Americans look up to congressional members for influence and direction. Ocasio-Cortez then called the meme an incitement to violence that would directly connect to violent acts. The congresswoman insisted that the meme shouldn’t be simplified as a mere trend, but examined critically for all its problematic parts and their significance. Conversely, Ocasio-Cortez insisted that the vote on such a matter should be simple.
“So when we talk about […] that these depictions are part of a larger trend of misogyny, and racist misogyny, this has results in dampening the participation,” said Ocasio-Cortez. “This vote is not as complex as perhaps the Republican leader would like to make folks believe. It’s pretty cut and dry. Does anyone in this chamber find this behavior acceptable? Would you allow depictions of violence against women and colleagues in your home? In your school board? In your city council? In a church? If it’s not acceptable there, why is it acceptable here?”
WATCH: Complete remarks by @RepAOC@AOC during U.S. House Debate on Resolution to Censure Rep. Paul Gosar.
"What is so hard, what is so hard about saying that this is wrong? This is not about me. This is not about Rep. Gosar. But, this is about what we are willing to accept." pic.twitter.com/nqV8ElU3d3
Over 700,000 jobs are expected to be created in Arizona in the next decade, according to a new report from the Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO).
According to the OEO report, Arizona employment is projected to increase from 3,030,216 jobs in 2020 to 3,751,905 jobs in 2030. This translates to growth of 721,689 jobs, or 2.2 percent annualized growth.
Arizona’s job growth rate will beat out—by more than 3 times—the expected overall U.S. growth rate over the same period. U.S. employment is projected to grow by 0.7 percent annually from 2020, compared to 2.2 percent in Arizona.
The largest job gains are anticipated in the Education and Health Services (23,906 jobs annually) and Professional and Business Services sector. The Education and Health Services and Construction sectors are expected to see the fastest job growth rates at 3.2 percent and 2.7 percent annualized growth respectively. The report predicts job growth in all 15 counties and all sectors excluding government.
According to a recent story, Arizona is recovering jobs lost during the pandemic faster than most other states, with the third-fastest jobs recovery in the nation. This comes on top of forecast-beating revenue collections reported by JLBC, another sign of economic strength. In addition, personal income in Arizona rose last year at a rate faster than nearly any state in the country.
Over the previous decade, Arizona employment increased by 492,645 jobs, or 1.8 percent annual change, to 3,030,216 jobs in 2020 from 2,537,571 jobs in 2010.
Devastating. That’s how it felt earlier this week when the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s ruling in Arizona School Boards Association v. State of Arizona. This decision strikes down critical reforms contained in a series of Budget Reconciliation Bills passed by lawmakers and signed by Governor Ducey earlier this year.
And it’s a big blow to the people of Arizona.
This past July, Arizona lawmakers took important steps to protect our state from more COVID mandates and government overreach. Among the laws passed were bans on:
A county, city, or town from issuing COVID ordinances that impact private businesses, schools, churches, or other private entities, including mask mandates.
K-12 schools from requiring vaccines with an emergency use authorization for in-person attendance.
The state and any city, town, or county from establishing COVID vaccine passports or requiring COVID vaccines.
Public universities and community colleges from mandating COVID vaccines and vaccine passports.
A city, town, county, school board, or charter school from mandating students and teachers to be vaccinated or wear masks.
But COVID wasn’t the only thing these Budget Reconciliation Bills addressed.
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) accepted Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s petition to defend previous President Donald Trump’s updates to a rule limiting green cards and citizenship to those who haven’t and won’t become dependent on welfare programs. Brnovich announced this update in a press release Friday.
“When other federal officials won’t defend the law, I will,” asserted Brnovich. “The Public Charge Rule is a commonsense policy based on a real inconvenient truth. Overrunning our welfare programs right now would be like pulling back the last safety net for Americans who need it most.”
Congress first enacted the “Public Charge Rule” in 1882: a concept that officials could deny immigrants entrance, visas, and even citizenship if officials deemed they were likely to become a “public charge.” The definition of “public charge” varied over the years. In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defined “public charge” as illegal immigrants who received one year’s worth of welfare benefits in the aggregate within a three-year period. Under that definition, two benefits received in one month counted as two months.
According to the latest available data analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies, about 55 percent of noncitizens relied on welfare in 2018. Noncitizens in their study included both green card holders and illegal immigrants. While the law does prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving welfare benefits, noncitizens may receive benefits on behalf of any children they have born in the U.S.
In April, SCOTUS rejected a previous petition from 14 states attempting to revive Trump-era litigation that the Biden Administration halted. Texas led the charge on that petition. The states claimed that dropping the Trump rule would force them to provide millions of dollars of government benefits to illegal immigrants.
SCOTUS determined that states would have to work through lower courts before they’d take up the case, if at all.
Their recent acceptance means that Arizona and 12 other states – Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia – may be eligible to defend the rule even though the Biden Administration has decided against doing so.
SCOTUS will not be deciding on the legality of the rule, and oral arguments haven’t been scheduled.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
