Key Senate Republicans blasted the Federal Emergency Management Agency for shoddy record-keeping regarding the transportation of illegal immigrants throughout the U.S.  FEMA distributes grants to nonprofit organizations for shelter and travel expenses for illegal immigrants‚ but last month informed The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project that it has no documentation about how that taxpayer money has been spent. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s news and commentary outlet.) “It is becoming clearer every day that the Democrats’ open-border catastrophe is not only being orchestrated by the Biden administration‚ the American taxpayer is unwittingly being forced to pay for this invasion‚” Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson‚ the top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee‚ told The Daily Signal. The committee oversees border and immigration issues. The FEMA admission that it lacks documentation for expenses comes less than a year after an internal federal audit stated FEMA is responsible for “a detailed accounting of all program funds.”  Sen. Ted Cruz‚ R-Texas‚ said this is part of President Joe Biden’s larger intention of “an open border with as little oversight as possible.” “Despite FEMA’s lack of a mechanism to track where these funds are sending illegal aliens‚ Biden still insists that Congress appropriate over $1.4 billion in Federal Emergency Management Agency funds to transport illegal aliens all over the country‚” Cruz told The Daily Signal in a statement.  The Texas senator called the Biden administration policies on the border “reckless and morally reprehensible.”  “We heard reports a 22-year-old college student‚ Laken Riley‚ was murdered by an illegal alien‚” Cruz said. “We have also heard of a two-year-old boy being shot outside of D.C.‚ an adolescent being raped in Massachusetts‚ and a teenager being sexually assaulted in Louisiana—all by illegal aliens. The human cost continues to rise as a result of this full-fledged invasion. We must secure our border now.” A FEMA spokesperson forwarded a Daily Signal request for comment to the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS did not immediately respond to The Daily Signal for this story as of publication time.  In mid-February‚ the agency did inform The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project that it had no responsive records regarding the expenses.  “Based on the original request you provided‚ we do not have reason to believe that FEMA would have records responsive to this request‚” a FEMA official said in response to a public records request from the Oversight Project on Feb. 12. “Accordingly‚ we are administratively closing the request without prejudice.” The request specifically asked for fiscal year 2023 information about “records regarding the Transportation Eligible Reimbursement” for the Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program‚ the Emergency Food and Shelter Program‚ and FEMA’s Office of Chief Procurement Officer. The Oversight Project posted on X‚ formerly Twitter‚ of FEMA: “They have admitted that they have zero documentation of where illegals travel to on taxpayer-funded resettlement trips.” ?Biden Admin Not Tracking Illegal AliensFEMA is charged with doling out taxpayer money to facilitate the continuation of the InvasionThey have admitted that they have zero documentation of where illegals travel to on taxpayer funded resettlement trips. pic.twitter.com/Z6kvuHC2y6— Oversight Project (@OversightPR) February 21‚ 2024 The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General issued a report in March 2023 stating that FEMA doled out $81.6 million to 25 nonprofit organizations in California‚ New Mexico‚ Arizona‚ and Texas.  These nonprofits “did not always provide the required receipts or documentation for claimed reimbursements‚” the inspector general’s report said. Some of the nonprofits “were unable to provide supporting documentation for families and individuals to whom they provided services.”  “These issues occurred because FEMA did not provide sufficient oversight of the funds and instead relied on local boards and fiscal agents to enforce the funding and application guidance‚” the report said. “As a result‚ FEMA‚ as the  [Emergency Food and Shelter] National Board Chair‚ cannot ensure the humanitarian relief funds were used as intended by the funding and application guidance.” FEMA is the chairing organization of the Emergency Food and Shelter National Board‚ which also includes the United Way Worldwide‚ Catholic Charities‚ Salvation Army‚ American Red Cross‚ Jewish Federations of North America‚ and National Council of Churches of Christ in USA.  Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post ‘MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE’: Senators Rip FEMA on Poor Handling of Illegal Immigrant Travel appeared first on The Daily Signal.

One of the more underappreciated recent trends in American law and politics‚ obscured by a few high-profile conservative victories at the Supreme Court and thus noticed by few other than dyed-in-the-wool legal conservatives‚ is that former President Donald Trump’s three picks for the high court are soft and undependable. The truth is that none of the Trump-era triumvirate of Justices Neil Gorsuch‚ Brett Kavanaugh‚ and Amy Coney Barrett can hold a candle to their two reliably conservative senior colleagues Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Kavanaugh and Barrett are pragmatic center-right judges‚ eager to avoid wading into hot-button “cultural” topics such as religious liberty and often disappointing when it comes to issues as wide-ranging as COVID-19 restrictions‚ immigration‚ and congressional redistricting. Gorsuch has the strongest libertarian streak on the court; he adamantly rejected COVID-19 tyranny‚ but he has proven a disaster on many other issues‚ such as gender ideology‚ Indian rights‚ and criminal law. If Trump secures a second presidential term‚ conservatives must ensure he makes better high court selections. It is nothing short of a Hollywood script-worthy twist of fate‚ then‚ that Trump’s own Supreme Court picks will now play an outsize role in determining whether such a second term materializes. On Wednesday‚ the Supreme Court agreed to expedite a hearing in the case of Donald J. Trump v. United States‚ in which the justices will decide “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” The resolution of this threshold question is necessary before determining whether special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of the 45th president for his conduct pertaining to the 2020 election can proceed. If the court holds that a former president is fully immune from such future criminal prosecutions‚ then Smith’s case in Washington‚ D.C.‚ dies. For the Biden Regime and the broader Democrat-lawfare complex‚ shaken by the incumbent’s horrific swing-state polling and motivated to derail Trump by any means necessary‚ the stakes couldn’t be any higher. With the Georgia prosecution on similar election-related grounds collapsing in real time due to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ extramarital scandal and public corruption‚ the regime has put all its eggs in Smith’s D.C. basket. And Smith will leave no stone unturned in his quest to secure a guilty verdict in Judge Tanya Chutkan’s trial court before the November election. It’s going to be a race against the clock for both sides. It is well-established Department of Justice policy that a sitting president cannot be criminally indicted‚ but whether a former president can be criminally indicted for actions he took while serving as president is a novel legal question. It should be obvious that at least some presidential actions—those implicating “core” Article II functions and presidential powers—must be immunized from future criminal prosecution. After all‚ do Democrats really think former President Barack Obama should be subject to prosecution‚ now that he is no longer the active president‚ for the 2011 drone assassination in Yemen that killed al-Qaeda operative and U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki? It would set a horrible precedent if the court permits post-presidency criminal prosecution for such “core” Article II functions—for tense‚ split-second decisions made in the White House Situation Room‚ for instance. But where to draw the line? And if there is no possible line between “core” and ancillary presidential functions that can be drawn‚ then is it best to do as Trump requests—immunize the entirety of a president’s conduct while actively serving from future criminal prosecution? Thomas and Alito‚ who tend to be more supportive of broad presidential power claims‚ might accept Trump’s argument in its entirety. But after them‚ it is not clear where Trump’s argument might attract more votes. Kavanaugh’s separation-of-powers jurisprudence is also more pro-Article II‚ but his “don’t rock the boat” disposition will make him wary of seeming too “Trumpy.” Chief Justice John Roberts has at times also shown sympathy for broad presidential power claims‚ but his seething personal animus for Trump is well known. And it is very difficult to see either Gorsuch or Barrett going along for the “full immunity” ride. The best Trump can reasonably hope for is a mixed opinion wherein the justices accept the premise that only “core” Article II functions are immunized from future prosecution and remand to a lower court to ascertain whether the specific conduct alleged in Smith’s indictment fits the bill. Such a mixed result is certainly plausible. But if Trump loses outright on the immunity issue‚ he will have himself to blame. He had the opportunity to nominate three Thomas/Alito-esque stalwarts. He whiffed. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Trump’s Fainthearted SCOTUS Picks Could Doom Him in DC Election Case appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Why‚ Doritos‚ Why?

Washington Post Opinion: I Was Glad I Had a Gun When a Man Broke Into My House

Hello SCOTUS: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling to Block TX Immigration Law

Passing abortion laws is never something that should be celebrated.  On Monday‚ in a historic Versailles vote‚ France made abortion a constitutional right. In response to legalized baby-killing‚ many people celebrated and Paris even lit up the Eiffel tower in support.  This makes France the first country in the world to enshrine abortion into its constitution. Out of 925 lawmakers eligible to vote for or against putting abortion into the constitution‚ 780 supported an amendment Monday during a joint session at the Palace of Versailles. As The Guardian reported‚ “there was thunderous applause in the chamber as the result was announced.” The amendment is set to be inscribed into the constitution on Friday‚ International Women’s Day. What better way to show how much your country hates women by promoting something as anti-woman as abortion? Prime Minister Gabriel Attal noted that “we owe a moral debt to women‚” during the session Monday‚ and added that passing the amendment would be “a victory for women's rights.” He wasn’t the only one to view this as a victory.  A huge group of pro-aborts gathered to hear the news and cheered jubilantly. They literally jumped up and down like kids in a candy store in support of innocent baby killing. In one video that captured their joy‚ the Eiffel Tower is shown glistening in honor of the news. In contrast‚ France’s Conference of Bishops urged people to fast and pray Monday over the pending legislation. Concerned Women for America insisted that “abortion dehumanizes children and disempowers women” and also urged followers to join them in prayer over the “sad day for the world.” “You are watching a scene from France as they CELEBRATE what will be a GENOCIDE of French babies after officially making abortion a constitutional right‚” Students for Life president Kristan Hawkins critiqued on X. You are watching a scene from France as they CELEBRATE what will be a GENOCIDE of French babies after officially making abortion a constitutional right. pic.twitter.com/QhOmvWyUab — Kristan Hawkins (@KristanHawkins) March 4‚ 2024 One user wrote: “Today is a sorrowful day for humanity as unborn children are regarded as objects rather than humans. The rotten fruits of the French Revolution. The only right that truly matters is the right to life; it is preeminent. Without this right‚ no other right holds significance.” This is utterly heartbreaking in many regards. For one‚ that a country just enshrined abortion into its constitution and for two that many people are not only happy but ecstatic about it.  

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) promised to fight for Americans’ right to free speech against government censorship‚ even when this censorship is outsourced to private companies.  Bishop went on MRC’s UnCensored with MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider on Feb. 29 to discuss his bill‚ the “Censorship Accountability Act‚” which Bishop said “might be the most important thing I've done in Congress.”  Bishop slammed Democrats for what Schneider described as a multi-federal agency effort to fund censorship regimes and "silence conservative voices in the name of trying to attack 'Russian disinformation.'" The lawmaker said in response: “[Democrats] don't want to give up their latest weapon of choice. Their latest weapon of choice is to use federal agencies to use faceless‚ nameless bureaucrats buried in the bureaucracy to go and harass the ever-living life out of conservative Americans for what they believe in.”  Related: WATCH: Rep. Bishop ‘Troubled’ by Dystopian Views of Ex-DHS Bureaucrat on Censorship Bishop and Schneider discussed several cases where federal employees worked with private partners “to wipe the government’s hands of direct involvement” in the censoring of conservative Americans. Addressing the potential censorship outsourcing‚ Bishop’s bill aims to enable Americans to sue any federal employee who may subject Americans “to the deprivation of any rights‚ privileges‚ or immunities secured by the First Amendment.”  Bishop noted a pattern of bad behavior dating back to the Obama administration’s IRS targeting scandal of 2013 when the federal government was directly weaponized against conservative groups. He went on to list more recent examples‚ including government pressure on tech companies during the 2020 election.  You May Also Like: More Accountability! Proposed Bill to Allow Citizens to Sue Censorship Regime Bishop attacked federal agencies for meeting with the management of social media companies “once a week” and pressuring them to remove user content. “What possible interest does the federal government legitimately have to do that?” Bishop asked‚ after detailing this coercive behavior.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

The unanimous 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down liberal state efforts to remove former President Trump from their 2024 ballots had the liberal media in a tailspin‚ on Monday. In the minutes following to release of their decision‚ CNN Newsroom host Jim Acosta was clearly irked as he absurdly whined that no one else in the history of America had appealed their cases more than Trump‚ he even argued that such appeals went against the very nature of the American justice system. “There are a lot of Americans out there‚” Acosta announced‚ possibly channeling his own frustrations‚ “They're just their blood is boiling over what Donald Trump did on January 6‚ what he did leading up to January 6‚ and they – they just think that he's just getting lead off the hook scot-free left and right.” He would go on to rant about how the Supreme Court avoided addressing the question of if Trump was an insurrectionist or was involved in inspiring one: It sounds like what we're talking about in anticipation of this decision that they were going to find an off-ramp to not deal with the prickly question as to whether or not Trump committed insurrection and should be kicked off the ballot because of that.     Acosta’s anger seemed to boil over during a conversation with former Trump lawyer Jim Schultz. “And Jim‚ what do you say to all those Americans out there who are watching this who are frustrated and say Trump is getting away with breaking the law?” he demanded to know. He decried that Trump “files appeal after appeal‚ he tries to delay every proceeding that's brought against him” and suggested it all “goes against what our judicial system should be about.” Without evidence‚ Acosta insisted that Trump was “treated differently” by the legal system “than just about everybody else in this country.” “I mean‚ just about anybody else would not have the ability to appeal things until kingdom come‚” he huffed. Shultz pointed out that that was exactly how the legal system was supposed to work and Acosta started shouting over him in protest: SHULTZ: Well‚ actually they do have the ability to do that as part of our justice system. ACOSTA: Well‚ for all practical purposes‚ that doesn’t happen. I mean‚ the vast majority of defendants out there don't have the resources to drag everything out in umpteen different cases across the country. In addition to Acosta’s unreasonableness‚ CNN host Dana Bash was upset that Trump was likely going to do what every other politician did when they scored a legal victory: play it up. “[Trump is] a politician and...a figure who takes things and will turn them the way that he wants America and the world to see them‚” she lamented. “Unfortunately for America‚” she later whined‚ “the court isn't necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be. They wanted Congress‚ the people who are closest to their constituents to be able to make the rules and the laws.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN Newsroom March 4‚ 2024 10:10:52 a.m. Eastern (…) DANA BASH: But you know‚ Donald Trump better than most; covered him for many‚ many years— JIM ACOSTA: A little here and there. BASH: Many year‚ as a reporter covering him as a politician and as a figure who takes things and will turn them the way that he wants America and the world to see them. I will be shocked if Donald Trump doesn't‚ as soon as he can‚ get out there and argue‚ not only that the Supreme Court is behind him‚ but he's probably going to argue – even though there's nothing in here that specifically says‚ as Elie [Honig] importantly pointed out‚ anything about what happened on January 6‚ it's just procedural about whether the states or Congress have a right. He will claim victory and I'm guessing he will do it in a more-broad way than this decision actually says. (…) 10:15:40 a.m. Eastern ACOSTA: There are a lot of Americans out there. They're just their blood is boiling over what Donald Trump did on January 6‚ what he did leading up to January 6‚ and they – they just think that he's just getting lead off the hook scot-free left and right. But I mean‚ let's dive into the legal part of this because you have to put those emotions to the side and talk about what's in this ruling and what the Supreme Court has done here. On page six of the opinion‚ Laura‚ it says this‚ “We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office‚ but states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section Three with respect to federal offices especially the presidency.” (…) 10:16:31 a.m. Eastern ACOSTA: It sounds like what we're talking about in anticipation of this decision that they were going to find an off-ramp to not deal with the prickly question as to whether or not Trump committed insurrection and should be kicked off the ballot because of that. (…) 10:25:39 a.m. Eastern ACOSTA: And Jim‚ what do you say to all those Americans out there who are watching this who are frustrated and say Trump is getting away with breaking the law‚ that he files appeal after appeal‚ he tries to delay every proceeding that's brought against him in a way that is just it just goes against what our judicial system should be about? I mean‚ isn't he treated differently than just about everybody else in this country? I mean‚ just about anybody else would not have the ability to appeal things until kingdom come. JIM SHULTZ: Well‚ actually they do have the ability to do that as part of our justice system. ACOSTA: Well‚ for all practical purposes‚ that doesn’t happen. I mean‚ the vast majority of defendants out there don't have the resources to drag everything out in umpteen different cases across the country. (…) 10:32:06 a.m. Eastern BASH: Unfortunately for America‚ the court isn't necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be. They wanted Congress‚ the people who are closest to their constituents to be able to make the rules and the laws. That doesn't change the fact that because of gerrymandering in the House and all kinds of other issues‚ they're not doing their job on a lot of these big issues. (…)

After testy testimony before Congress several weeks ago‚ it appears that time may be clicking away for TikTok‚ the communist Chinese government-tied social media app that is all the rage with our nation’s youth. Amid the fanfare of love him or hate him‚ Elon Musk’s X platform (formerly Twitter)‚ TikTok had faded into the background a bit‚ but it remains a pernicious and deeply troubling part of the social media universe.  Just ask President Joe Biden. In a perplexing if not hypocritical move‚ basement Biden 2.0 continues to use the app for his reelection campaign‚ posting nearly 50 TikTok videos after having banned roughly 4 million federal employees from using it‚ among other data security measures. But there are still deep concerns about TikTok’s use of data‚ including data from children‚ and how the communist Chinese government may or may not have access to it. New social media usage statistics provide a cause for concern and should give one pause‚ especially considering the fact that American kids are using TikTok 60 percent more than U.S.-based YouTube. And if that wasn’t bad enough‚ 33 percent of American adults are scrolling through the Chinese social media juggernaut as well. The fear of this open portal for American’s information heading to the Chinese Communist Party is why several states have already implemented bans on the app. The bad news here is that of late the mounting pressure to ban the app in the U.S. has largely subsided given the multitudes of other major issues that are ripping at the fabric of the country. But add to that fact this from The Wall Street Journal just over a month ago: “TikTok Struggles to Protect U.S. Data From Its China Parent.” A little-known unit called “Project Texas” was created to allay fears that China is hoovering up Americans' data to one day use against them‚ but according to The Journal even this group is sharing info with parent company ByteDance‚ which has ties with the communist Chinese government.  But the problems don’t stop there. CBS News’s 60 Minutes just a few weeks ago uncovered how videos posted on TikTok are providing illegal immigrants with “step-by-step instructions” for hiring smugglers and entering America through a small gap along the southern border. From MRC Free Speech America‚ more on this bit of news: “The 60 Minutes segment showed illegal aliens pouring through a gap in the border fence. ‘We wondered how all of these migrants knew about this particular entryway into California‚’ correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi began. ‘The answer was in their hands.’ The video shows Alfonsi talking with migrants and learning they utilized TikTok. Alfonsi reported that a TikTok post instructs migrants on hiring smugglers.  Videos on TikTok are providing migrants with step-by-step instructions for hiring a smuggler and illegally entering America through a small gap in the southern border fence. https://t.co/WbQBF6SSUE pic.twitter.com/mIGhEjBYox — 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) February 5‚ 2024 “TikTok bans illegal content‚ including ‘content which promotes or facilitates illegal services’ and ‘national security-related offenses.’ The Communist Chinese government-tied app’s own policy also bans ‘human exploitation‚ including trafficking and smuggling’ content‚ but in doing so‚ the platform does still allow ‘for migrants and refugees to be able to document their journeys.’” Aside from a few voices cautioning against and/or calling for an outright “ban” of the platform following this revelation from 60 Minutes‚ Congress‚ the media and‚ by extension‚ the American people have all failed to keep their eye on the ball regarding the very real threat being thumbed through daily by Americans (predominantly our kids) in the millions. Indeed‚ we live in a time where at 13 Baltimore High Schools there is not a single student proficient in math — not one. But this begs the question: how many of those kids are getting their actual education‚ such as it is‚ from TikTok on their phone?  Some of this played out in the halls of Congress as Big Tech CEOs‚ including Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg‚ Snap’s Evan Spiegel‚ Discord’s Jason Citron‚ TikTok’s Shou Zi Chew and X’s Linda Yaccarino testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. For his part‚ Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) did not hold back while grilling the Big Tech executives. “You have blood on your hands‚” Graham told them. “You have a product that’s killing people.” And in one dramatic moment‚ Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) — who has routinely pounded Big Tech for its lack of action — even asked Facebook head honcho Zuckerberg if he would apologize to the parents of children allegedly harmed by his product in the chamber‚ at which point‚ awkwardly‚ the CEO kind of did so. Say what you will about Facebook‚ or even X for that matter‚ but they do not have strong ties to communist China the way TikTok does‚ and that means that the latter presents a very different and grave threat.  Take this example from an MRC Free Speech America exclusive last year: “Fox News China expert Gordon Chang said that TikTok is untrustworthy and the CEO can’t necessarily guarantee how user data is used by the Communist Chinese government; former member of the Defense Intelligence Community Scott Kieff said that the U.S. should believe China when it reveals that it’s being nefarious; and former Deputy National Security Adviser KT McFarland noted the disturbing ways the Chinese government can use TikTok to influence Americans.” Many experts‚ including Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr‚ have stated that there may be no other way to combat the impact of TikTok on Americans than an outright ban. “There simply isn't ‘a world in which you could come up with sufficient protection on the data that you could have sufficient confidence that it’s not finding its way back into the hands of the [Chinese Communist Party]‚’” Carr warned.

A bill that would criminalize small amounts of drug possession and overturn a decriminalization motion from 2020 passed in the Oregon state Senate and will head to the governor's desk.House Bill 4002 passed in the Oregon House with a 51-7 vote and subsequently in the state Senate with 21-8 vote‚ recriminalizing possession of small amounts of drugs such as heroin or methamphetamine.As Breitbart reported‚ possession would be punishable by up to six months in jail and enables police to confiscate drugs. Drug treatment would also be offered as an alternative to criminal penalties."With this bill‚ we are doubling down on our commitment to make sure Oregonians have access to the treatment and care that they need‚" said Democratic state Senate Majority Leader Kate Lieber‚ one of the bill’s authors.She added that it would "be the start of real and transformative change for our justice system."Under the new law‚ five grams or more of specified drugs constitute "substantial quantities‚" which would increase criminal sentencing and be used to justify punishment for other crimes‚ such as drug trafficking.Other drugs listed included fentanyl‚ cocaine‚ psilocybin‚ and more.Governor Tina Kotek has not openly stated whether she will sign or veto the bill‚ however Oregon Public Broadcasting noted that the governor has alluded to the idea of recriminalizing drug possession.Much of the worry around drug use in the state has come from an opioid epidemic. Blaze News reported many of the troubling statistics leading up the state's vote‚ including that fatal overdoses have skyrocketed.According to Oregon Health Authority data‚ the number of fatal overdoses was 824 in 2020. Then‚ after decriminalization‚ there were 1‚189 fatal overdoses in 2021. Preliminary data indicated the number of deaths from overdoses in 2022 was over 1‚100.OregonLive.com also noted that in the year ending September 2019‚ there were 77 known fentanyl deaths. In the year ending September 2023‚ there were reportedly 1‚268 overdose deaths.Criticisms came from other Democrats who said it was a return to a "punishment narrative" that has failed for half a century."I’m concerned that it (the bill) will attempt to use the same tactics of the past‚ and fail‚ only to reinforce the punishment narrative that has failed for 50 years‚” said Democratic Senator Lew Frederick.The senator also said he worried that more people will be put into the court system rather than becoming healthier.At the same time‚ Oregon is in an official state of emergency — enacted in late January 2024 — due to its fentanyl crisis.The new bill reportedly encourages law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to refer individuals convicted of possession to drug treatment programs. $211 million has been allocated in the bill.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!