Is a Minneapolis daycare hiding something behind bizarre wall photos, or is this just another overblown controversy?
The ABC Learning Center, a Somali-run facility in Minneapolis, has landed in hot water amid allegations of fraud, with independent journalist Nick Shirley exposing an apparently empty building despite hefty taxpayer funding, while peculiar stock images on the walls have only fueled suspicion.
Over $1 million in public funds from the Child Care Assistance Program flowed to this center in the last fiscal year alone, even as the building stood empty.
The trouble started when Shirley’s report revealed a daycare that seemed devoid of children, despite claims of serving dozens. Questions quickly mounted about how such a facility could justify its funding.
ABC Learning Center’s director, Ahmed Hasan, pushed back, inviting Associated Press reporters inside to counter the narrative. He insists the center enrolls 56 children and operates normally.
“There's no fraud happening here,” Hasan declared. With all due respect, sir, an empty-looking building and over a million in funding don’t exactly scream transparency—let’s see the proof.
Things got weirder when viewers of Shirley’s video noticed random stock images—or possibly AI-generated pictures—plastered on the center’s walls, including under a “science” label. Online speculation exploded, with some suggesting these photos might conceal something unrelated to childcare.
“I wanna know what's under those stock photos,” one anonymous user on X mused. Call it a conspiracy if you must, but when decor looks more like a cover-up than a curriculum, eyebrows deservedly rise.
Since the video dropped, the center has faced harassing phone calls, which is unfortunate and uncalled for. Criticism must stay civil, but so must accountability—state regulators already conduct routine checks, so let’s hope they dig deeper.
Minnesota’s Department of Children, Youth, and Families stepped in, inspecting nine facilities flagged in Shirley’s reporting, including ABC Learning Center. Their findings? Most centers, including this one, were “operating as expected” with children present at eight of nine locations during visits.
Still, the state agency is gathering evidence for further review, which is the bare minimum taxpayers should expect. With one center not even open during inspection, skepticism remains warranted.
On the federal level, the Department of Health and Human Services has frozen funding, demanding Governor Tim Walz audit the implicated centers. Walz, meanwhile, has decided against running for re-election amid a scandal costing billions in taxpayer dollars—a move that hardly inspires confidence in state oversight.
This daycare drama ties into a broader wave of fraud concerns within Minnesota’s Somali community, a topic amplified in recent political discourse around immigration policy. From a conservative lens, securing borders and vetting programs isn’t about prejudice—it’s about protecting public resources for legal residents.
While Hasan and state officials claim compliance, the strange wall decor and funding discrepancies keep questions alive. Minnesota must meet a federal deadline to report on childcare fund recipients, or risk losing support altogether—a consequence no one wants.
Ultimately, this isn’t just about one daycare; it’s about trust in systems meant to serve vulnerable families. If even a fraction of these allegations holds water, the damage to public faith could be lasting. For now, let’s demand answers, not assumptions, and ensure every penny serves its purpose.
Tragedy strikes as a young servant of faith in the LDS religion, Elder Caleb Gene Martin, loses his life unexpectedly while on a sacred mission in New Mexico.
In a heartbreaking turn of events, Elder Martin, a 21-year-old from Salem, Utah, passed away in his sleep on Saturday while serving in the New Mexico Farmington Mission, with the cause of his death still a mystery pending an autopsy.
Parents and community members are left reeling, wondering if there are unseen medical impacts that could affect other young missionaries in similar far-flung postings.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints broke the news on Sunday, confirming the sudden passing of one of their own.
Elder Martin began his mission in May 2024, dedicating his life to spreading his faith in the rugged landscapes of New Mexico.
His death on Saturday, while he slept, has left fellow missionaries and church members grappling with grief over a life of service cut short.
Church officials stated, "It is with deep sadness that we share news of the passing of a young missionary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," as they mourned the loss of Elder Martin.
While their words carry weight, let’s not shy away from asking tough questions about why a healthy 21-year-old passes without explanation—answers must come swiftly to protect others.
The cause of death, described as an undetermined medical issue, is under scrutiny, with an autopsy planned to shed light on this tragedy.
Church leaders also expressed, "We extend our heartfelt condolences to his family, friends and fellow missionaries," hoping they find solace in faith during this dark time.
Touching as that sentiment is, it’s time for more than prayers—conservative values demand accountability and transparency to ensure no other family endures such a loss without answers.
As we honor Elder Martin’s commitment, it’s impossible to ignore the nagging concern about whether mission programs are doing enough to monitor health risks in isolated regions.
This isn’t about pointing fingers but upholding the principle of responsibility—a cornerstone of any society that values life over progressive excuses for inaction.
Let’s stand with the Martin family, not just in sympathy, but in pushing for clarity on what took a young man so soon, ensuring his sacrifice isn’t overshadowed by unanswered questions.
President Donald Trump just delivered a sharp message to Colombian President Gustavo Petro during a high-stakes briefing.
During a Saturday morning session with reporters, Trump tied his blunt critique of Petro to ongoing U.S.-Colombia tensions over drug trafficking and recent controversial remarks, while also addressing the takedown of former Venezuelan leader Nicholas Maduro.
On December 22, Trump hosted reporters at his Mar-a-Lago estate to unveil plans for a new naval battleship. It was there that the sparks first flew, as Trump fielded questions about Petro’s eyebrow-raising claim that parts of the southern U.S., like Texas and California, were “invaded” territories.
Petro’s remarks have poured fuel on already strained relations between Washington and Bogotá. From a conservative lens, this kind of rhetoric undermines national sovereignty and demands a firm response, not diplomatic tiptoeing.
Fast forward to Saturday’s briefing, where Trump didn’t hold back while discussing the arrest of Maduro on a Department of Justice warrant for narco-terrorism. He turned the spotlight on Petro, linking Colombia’s leadership to the drug trade plaguing American streets.
“Watch his a**,” Trump declared during the briefing, aiming squarely at Petro with unfiltered candor. More than tough talk, his words are a populist rallying cry for Americans tired of foreign policy softness.
“He's no friend of the United States. He's a very bad guy, and he's got to watch his a** because he makes cocaine, and they send it into the United States of America from Colombia,” Trump doubled down. While the language is raw, it reflects a conservative frustration with leaders perceived as complicit in the drug crisis harming American families.
Trump’s critique wasn’t all barbs; he made a point to express support for the Colombian people while zeroing in on the country’s leadership. This balance shows a nuanced stance—backing citizens while holding their government to account.
Meanwhile, the briefing’s core focus was Trump’s order for the takedown of Maduro, a move hailed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio as a display of decisive leadership. From a right-of-center view, this is what strength looks like—tackling narco-terrorism head-on.
Former Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie, speaking to Newsmax on Saturday, offered insight into the broader impact of Maduro’s regime collapse. He suggested it could stabilize the western hemisphere and potentially curb mass migration into the U.S., a key concern for conservative voters.
Wilkie’s analysis aligns with a populist hope that dismantling corrupt regimes will ease border pressures. It’s a pragmatic take, not just wishful thinking, and it resonates with those who prioritize national security over open-border policies.
Trump’s warnings to Petro aren’t mere posturing; they underscore a critical issue—drug trafficking’s toll on American lives. Conservatives argue it’s time for accountability, not excuses, from nations implicated in the crisis.
While some may wince at Trump’s bluntness, many on the right see it as refreshing honesty in a world of polished diplo-speak. The message is clear: leaders linked to narcotics won’t get a free pass under this administration.
Ultimately, this saga is a reminder of the complex interplay between foreign policy and domestic safety. For American communities battered by the drug epidemic, Trump’s stance—however brash—offers a glimmer of resolve to confront the problem at its source.
In a stunning act of bravery, an off-duty Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent took down a gunman on New Year’s Eve in Northridge, Los Angeles, preventing what could have been a tragic active shooter situation.
Just after 10:30 p.m. on Dec. 31, at an apartment complex on Roscoe Boulevard, this heroic agent exchanged gunfire with a neighbor—a Black male in his 30s—firing a rifle into the air, ultimately ending the threat by fatally shooting the suspect, Newsmax reported.
For hardworking homeowners in Northridge, this incident hits close to home, raising serious concerns about personal safety and the potential financial burden of increased security measures or legal battles over neighborhood safety policies. From a conservative standpoint, it’s a stark reminder that law enforcement, even off-duty, often stands as the last line of defense when chaos erupts. We can’t afford to let progressive agendas weaken their ability to act—full stop.
The timeline of events is chillingly clear: late on New Year’s Eve, as families likely celebrated nearby, the gunman began discharging his rifle at the apartment complex.
An off-duty ICE agent, whose identity remains undisclosed, didn’t hesitate to respond, engaging the shooter in a deadly exchange of gunfire.
Whether the suspect aimed at the agent remains unclear, but the outcome was decisive—the gunman was pronounced dead when Los Angeles Police Department officers arrived on the scene.
After neutralizing the threat, the ICE agent promptly called 911, ensuring authorities could take over and secure the area.
The Department of Homeland Security has stood firmly behind the agent, emphasizing his courage in a moment of crisis.
“To protect his life and that of others, he was forced to defensively use his weapon and exchanged gunfire with the shooter,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. Let’s unpack that: while some might question the use of force, the reality is that hesitation could have cost innocent lives—something no community should risk.
Further defending the agent, DHS highlighted his unscathed survival as a small miracle amid the chaos.
“Fortunately, our brave officer was not injured while protecting his community,” McLaughlin added. That’s a relief, but it doesn’t erase the need for a thorough investigation—conservatives demand accountability, even for heroes, to ensure every detail holds up under scrutiny.
As of now, no arrests have been made in connection with this shooting, which raises eyebrows among those of us skeptical of slow-rolling investigations.
The LAPD continues to probe the incident, leaving many questions unanswered about the gunman’s motives or potential targets.
For now, Northridge residents can breathe a sigh of relief, thanks to one man’s willingness to act when danger struck. But let’s not get complacent—local leaders must ensure law enforcement isn’t hamstrung by overzealous regulations or anti-police rhetoric that could deter such heroism in the future.
Brian Stover just threw his name into the ring to fill the big shoes left by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) in Georgia’s 14th Congressional District with a sharp new ad that’s got everyone talking.
Stover, a former Paulding County Commissioner, officially announced his candidacy in mid-December and dropped his first campaign spot on Thursday, aiming to win over the heavily Republican northwest Georgia district with a message tied tightly to President Donald Trump’s agenda.
For hardworking taxpayers in this district, Stover’s focus on slashing federal spending and lowering the cost of living hits home—especially when grocery bills and utility costs keep climbing with no relief in sight. His pledge to tackle these financial burdens head-on could be a lifeline for families already stretched thin. From a conservative standpoint, it’s about time someone stood up to the unchecked waste in Washington.
Stover’s entry into the race comes as Greene, a prominent conservative and Trump ally since taking office in 2021, prepares to step away from Congress early in 2026. Her departure has opened the door for a competitive special election, drawing candidates from both major parties and even an Independent contender.
In his 30-second advertisement, Stover brands himself as a no-nonsense businessman, not another career politician. He’s banking on that outsider appeal to resonate with voters tired of the same old D.C. playbook.
“Like President Trump, I’m a businessman, not a politician,” Stover declares in the ad. Well, that’s a refreshing line in a world where slick suits often drown out common sense—but let’s see if he can deliver on the grit he’s promising.
Stover isn’t shy about hitching his wagon to Trump’s star, emphasizing a platform that mirrors the former president’s priorities. From bolstering border security to backing law enforcement, his message is a clear nod to conservative voters who want action, not excuses.
He also promises to defend Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, combat drug trafficking, and protect parental rights in education. For parents in the district, this could mean a stronger say in school policies without the overreach of progressive agendas. It’s a stance that demands accountability, not apologies, from those shaping our kids’ futures.
“I’ll bring our values to D.C. … and fight tooth and nail to bring costs down,” Stover vows in his ad. That’s a tall order when federal budgets balloon faster than a hot air balloon, but if he’s serious, it’s a fight worth watching.
Greene’s tenure in Congress made her a household name among conservatives, often standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Trump on key issues. However, recent months have seen her drift from the former president on matters like the release of certain high-profile documents, signaling a shift that’s raised eyebrows.
Her exit on January 5, 2026, sets the stage for a special election that’s already shaping up to be a battleground in this Republican stronghold. Stover’s challenge will be standing out in a crowded field hungry for the seat.
Beyond economics, Stover’s platform champions faith, freedom, and constitutional principles—a rallying cry for those who feel traditional values are under siege by modern cultural shifts. It’s not just rhetoric; it’s a call to preserve what many in the district hold dear.
The race for Georgia’s 14th District isn’t just a local affair—it’s a national spotlight on what conservative leadership looks like post-Greene. Stover’s early ad blitz shows he’s ready to play hardball, but the question remains if his Trump-aligned message will seal the deal.
For retirees in the area, Stover’s commitment to reducing costs could directly impact fixed incomes strained by inflation and rising healthcare expenses. His focus on cutting federal excess isn’t just talk; it’s a potential shield against further economic pressure. From a populist angle, it’s high time leaders stopped treating taxpayer dollars like Monopoly money.
As the special election looms, all eyes are on this northwest Georgia contest to see if Stover can turn his businessman bravado into votes. With a field of contenders and a district that leans hard right, he’ll need more than catchy ads to clinch this seat—but he’s off to a scrappy start.
Conservative media is imploding with a feud that’s juicier than a steak at a Trump rally.
A public spat between former Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and radio host Mark Levin has spiraled into a full-blown war of words, exposing deep divisions within the MAGA movement over ideology and credibility.
The fireworks started at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest in mid-December, where Ben Shapiro delivered a keynote speech slamming certain right-wing figures as “grifters” peddling conspiracies. His pointed critique targeted names like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon for not distancing themselves from controversial voices.
Shapiro didn’t hold back, and his words struck a nerve within MAGA circles. “The conservative movement is in danger, from charlatans who claim to speak in the name of principle but actually traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty, who offer nothing but bile and despair,” he declared (as reported by The Hollywood Reporter). While Shapiro’s warning about integrity resonates with many conservatives tired of fringe nonsense, one wonders if his own sharp tone risks alienating allies who share core values.
Megyn Kelly, once a primetime star at Fox News, jumped into the fray by aligning herself with Carlson, Candace Owens, and Jack Posobiec, rejecting Shapiro’s critique. Her stance has drawn heat from former supporters who argue she’s chasing clicks over principles. It’s a fair question—has the quest for relevance trumped the fight for conservative truths?
The feud took a personal turn when Mark Levin, host of Fox News’ “Life, Liberty & Levin,” unleashed a scathing post on X against Kelly. He brought up her 2018 exit from NBC’s “Today” show, tying it to a past controversy.
Levin didn’t mince words, stating, “Meg Kelly, whose ratings were so bad on NBC she became a laughingstock, was canned for promoting blackface on Halloween” (as posted on X). His attack paints Kelly as unfit for the conservative mantle, but such personal jabs risk overshadowing the real debate about policy and direction—shouldn’t we focus on ideas, not old grudges?
Kelly fired back with equal venom, refusing to let Levin’s words stand unchallenged. Her response was a reminder that she’s no stranger to a fight, even if her rhetoric sometimes muddies the waters of substantive critique.
Meanwhile, Candace Owens, a figure Kelly defends, has stirred controversy with unproven claims about the death of Turning Point’s late co-founder, Charlie Kirk, suggesting a global conspiracy. Such theories, lacking evidence, only fuel critics like Shapiro who see them as damaging to the conservative cause.
Kelly has suggested that Shapiro and others are driven by their support for Israel, framing the criticism as agenda-driven. While policy disagreements over foreign affairs are valid, tying personal motives to such critiques risks derailing a needed conversation about credibility in the media.
Fox News, where both Kelly and Levin built their careers, has stayed mum on the spat. No other network personalities besides Levin have weighed in, and executives are keeping their distance, offering no comment to outside inquiries. This silence speaks volumes—perhaps they’re hoping the storm blows over before it impacts their bottom line.
For conservative viewers, this isn’t just a soap opera—it’s a fracture in a movement that needs unity to counter progressive overreach. The risk of alienating supporters with infighting could weaken the push against policies many see as harmful to traditional values.
As an unnamed longtime Fox News producer quipped, “It’s like crazy person versus crazy person. Who you gonna root for in that fight?” (as reported by The Hollywood Reporter). While the humor lands, the deeper truth stings—conservative media must refocus on shared goals, not personal vendettas, if it hopes to remain a trusted voice.
Ultimately, this feud between Kelly and Levin, which sparked at AmericaFest, is a wake-up call for the MAGA movement to address internal rifts without losing sight of the bigger battle against a woke agenda. Let’s hope these heavyweights can trade punches over policy, not past slights, and keep the focus on what matters to everyday Americans. After all, the real fight isn’t on X—it’s in the arena of ideas shaping our nation’s future.
Big changes are coming to the labels on your steaks, chops, and omelet ingredients in just two days.
On January 1, 2026, a new USDA rule kicks in, tightening the reins on what can be slapped with a 'Product of USA' label for meat, poultry, and egg products.
For hardworking American farmers and ranchers, this is a long-overdue fix to a system that’s been gaming them for years, while consumers—especially budget-conscious families—face the risk of unknowingly shelling out for substandard products misrepresented as homegrown with potential health and quality concerns.
Back in March 2024, then-USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack rolled out this rule with a promise of fairness, and it’s finally set to take effect.
Under the old system, meat from animals born, raised, and slaughtered abroad could still wear the 'Product of USA' badge if it was merely packaged here—a sneaky loophole that’s been padding the pockets of big meat packers.
Now, only products from animals born, raised, and slaughtered on U.S. soil can claim that patriotic label, and it’s about time we stopped letting corporate giants skirt the rules.
This isn’t just about labels; it’s about leveling the playing field for smaller farm operations that get crushed when large companies outsource to countries with lax health and safety standards for workers and animals.
Advocates have long argued these loose regulations let big beef packers peddle cheaper, lower-quality meat while duping consumers into thinking they’re buying American, undercutting the very folks who play by the rules.
As Vilsack put it, "This final rule will ensure that when consumers see 'Product of USA' they can trust the authenticity of that label and know that every step involved, from birth to processing, was done here in America."
Trust is the name of the game, and this rule forces companies to back up their claims with hard evidence, like records proving an animal was raised from birth to slaughter in the U.S.
For state-specific labels, such as 'Product of Idaho,' every step—birth, raising, slaughter, and processing—must happen in that state, or they’ve got to add a disclaimer like 'Packaged in Arizona' if that’s all they did there.
Even multi-ingredient products, like a hearty meatloaf, must have every component sourced and prepared domestically to earn that 'Product of USA' stamp, no exceptions.
Here’s the kicker: this label is voluntary, meaning companies don’t have to use it, but if they do, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service will be watching like hawks to ensure no funny business.
Documentation is key—whether it’s proof from a ranch showing the animal’s full U.S. journey or records of domestic processing, firms better have their paperwork in order or face the consequences.
Joe Maxwell, a veteran farmer and co-founder of Farm Action, nailed it when he called this "a huge win for America's farmers, ranchers and consumers," and conservatives should cheer this as a rare government move that actually sticks up for the little guy over corporate cronies.
President Donald Trump claimed in remarks from Mar A Lago on Monday that a pardon for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is imminent, but at least one Israeli leader has denied the claim.
Here’s the crux: Israeli President Isaac Herzog is pushing back against Trump’s assertion that a pardon for Netanyahu, who’s tangled in corruption charges, is “on its way,” while Netanyahu meets with Trump at Mar-a-Lago to hash out a Gaza peace plan.
Let’s rewind to 2019, when Netanyahu was indicted on serious charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust during his fourth and fifth terms as Israel’s leader. These accusations, involving several prominent Israeli businessmen, have kept him in court since 2020.
Before the trial even kicked off, Netanyahu tried to shield himself by requesting immunity from the Israeli Parliament. That didn’t pan out, and the legal storm has raged on.
Fast forward to November—exact year unspecified in reports—when Netanyahu turned to Herzog’s office with a pardon request, arguing that constant court appearances are splitting the nation after the horrific terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023. He also claimed they’re hampering his ability to steer the Gaza war’s wind-down.
Enter Trump, who’s never shy about making waves, meeting Netanyahu at Mar-a-Lago to discuss a peace plan for Gaza. During this powwow, Trump told reporters on Monday that a pardon for Netanyahu is coming soon.
“I think he will. How do you not? He’s a wartime prime minister who’s a hero,” Trump declared to the press in Florida. Call it classic Trump—full-throated support for a leader he admires, but let’s be real: pardons aren’t his jurisdiction in Israel, and conservatives value the rule of law over personal loyalty.
Trump doubled down, adding, “How do you not give a pardon, you know?” While his heart might be in the right place, many on the right would argue that justice systems must play out without foreign interference, even from a friend like Trump.
Now, Herzog’s office is setting the record straight with a firm rebuttal. “There has been no conversation between President Herzog and President Trump since the pardon request was submitted,” they stated clearly.
Instead, Herzog spoke with a Trump administration official to outline where the pardon process stands. That explanation, per his office, matches what he’s told the Israeli public—no special deals, no secret chats.
Still, Trump’s comments suggest he’s been given a different impression, which raises questions about miscommunication or wishful thinking. For those of us skeptical of elite backchannels, this discrepancy demands clarity.
From a conservative lens, this saga isn’t just about Netanyahu’s fate—it’s about sovereignty and the principle that no leader is above the law. If Trump’s enthusiasm for a pardon muddies the waters, it risks looking like meddling in another nation’s judicial process, something the left would howl about if the roles were reversed.
American patriots, especially those wary of overreaching globalist agendas, want to see Israel handle its own affairs without outside pressure skewing the scales of justice. Let’s support our allies, sure, but not by undermining their legal systems or dodging accountability. Investigations must proceed, full stop.
Could a single Supreme Court decision hand Republicans the keys to the U.S. House in 2026?
A pivotal case, Louisiana v. Callais, challenging Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, might reshape congressional maps across the South and potentially net the GOP nine or more seats in the upcoming midterm elections.
During oral arguments two months ago, a majority of the conservative Supreme Court justices signaled skepticism about race-based congressional districts, a practice rooted in Section 2’s protections against voting discrimination based on race or color.
This provision has historically led to majority-minority districts, often benefiting Democrats in Republican-leaning states with significant Black populations.
If struck down, as many as 30 districts with high Black voter populations—over half in red states—could be redrawn, directly threatening Democratic strongholds.
Analysis from Nate Cohn of The New York Times suggests that scrapping these districts might cut Democratic-held seats in the South from 24 to half that number, with nine direct pickups for the GOP.
With the GOP clinging to a slim 220-213 House majority, and only a three-vote buffer for Speaker Mike Johnson on partisan issues, every seat counts—especially with historical midterm losses looming for the party holding the White House.
President Trump has urged GOP-led states to seize the moment with mid-decade redistricting, like Texas’ new maps that could add five Republican seats, while allies eye similar moves in Florida.
Democrats aren’t sitting idle—California voters recently passed a ballot measure to redraw maps in a way that could offset Texas’ gains by bolstering Democratic seats.
Still, there’s risk even for Republicans; eliminating these districts might create moderate swing seats that could flip to centrist Democrats in a strong blue wave, diluting the GOP’s hoped-for edge.
“If it comes and it completely changes our understanding of Section 2 and doesn’t protect these districts anymore, you could have a significant impact,” said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
Kondik’s caution is well-placed, but let’s be real—Democrats like Rep. Cleo Fields of Louisiana, whose redrawn 6th District is at the heart of this case, might soon find their political maps looking more like a Jackson Pollock painting than a safe seat.
Others, like Rep. Troy Carter of Louisiana, Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, and Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, face similar threats as state Republicans could reconfigure districts if Section 2 falls, while Reps. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, Shomari Figures and Terri Sewell of Alabama, and Wesley Bell of Missouri are also on the chopping block.
“The Voting Rights Act is not a relic; it is a living promise that our democracy belongs to everyone,” stressed Rep. Troy Carter after oral arguments—a noble sentiment, though conservatives might argue it’s been stretched to prioritize partisan advantage over fair representation.
Is New York prioritizing felons over victims in its latest prison reform push? Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman certainly thinks so, as he publicly rebuked Governor Kathy Hochul for signing a bill that reserves a seat on the state corrections commission for a convicted criminal.
This controversy stems from a sweeping prison reform bill signed by Hochul last Friday, which expands the New York State Corrections Commission to include a formerly incarcerated individual while aiming to boost oversight and safety in state facilities after tragic inmate deaths.
Why should public funds support a commission seat for someone who broke the law, when victims of crime—already burdened by financial and emotional costs—could offer a firsthand perspective on justice? This feels like a slap in the face to those footing the bill for a system that seems to coddle offenders.
The reform bill wasn’t born in a vacuum—it came after horrifying incidents of inmates dying in custody. Cases like Robert Brooks, allegedly beaten by prison personnel, and Messiah Natwi, reportedly killed similarly, have fueled demands for change. Corrections officers even staged a strike earlier this year, underscoring the tension within the system.
Hochul’s administration has already rolled out measures like speeding up camera installations in prisons and mandating their use by staff. She also secured $2.5 million in this year’s budget to equip the corrections commission with more resources for oversight. But is adding a criminal’s voice to the commission the right next step?
“Every single individual who enters our prisons deserves to be safe, whether they are employed there or serving their time,” said Governor Kathy Hochul. Nice sentiment, Governor, but conservatives might argue that safety starts with supporting victims and law enforcement, not amplifying the perspective of those who violated the public trust.
Blakeman, a leading Republican candidate for governor, didn’t mince words in his critique of Hochul’s decision. “If the Commission of Correction is going to be expanded, the additional seat should go to a crime victim, not someone who broke the law,” he told the Washington Examiner. His point hits home for many who feel the system too often forgets those harmed by crime.
From a populist lens, Blakeman’s stance resonates with everyday New Yorkers tired of progressive policies that seem to sideline their concerns. Victims, after all, bear the real-world consequences of a justice system that can feel maddeningly lenient.
Prison reform advocates, like State Senator Julia Salazar, have cheered Hochul’s move, calling it a step toward transparency and reduced violence. But shouldn’t transparency start with ensuring the voices of the wronged are heard over those who did the wronging? That’s a question conservatives are asking.
Not everyone in the corrections world is on board with this reform package either. The NYS Correctional Officers Police Benevolent Association called it an overreach, arguing it unfairly paints all officers with the same brush after isolated tragedies. Their frustration is palpable—and understandable.
“The death of Robert Brooks was a profound tragedy, and meaningful reforms to ensure that never happens again must be made,” the association stated. Yet, they quickly added, broad punitive measures targeting dedicated professionals miss the mark. From a right-of-center view, this feels like another case of policy overreaction at the expense of those who keep us safe.
Hochul’s reforms, including funding for investigations and camera mandates, show she’s trying to address systemic issues. But conservatives might argue that true accountability means no one—especially not those in power—gets a pass from scrutiny. Every incident must be investigated thoroughly, no exceptions.
The debate over this corrections commission seat isn’t just about policy—it’s about values. Does New York stand with victims, or does it bend over backward for a progressive agenda that risks alienating the law-abiding majority? That’s the tension Blakeman is tapping into.
For many on the right, this is a clear-cut issue of justice being turned on its head. A commission meant to oversee safety shouldn’t be a platform for those who once endangered it. Let’s hope future reforms remember who the real stakeholders are.