Oklahoma Senate passes bill to protect motorists who strike violent protesters​ while fleeing riot

Oklahoma Senate passes bill to protect motorists who strike violent protesters​ while fleeing riot



The Oklahoma Senate passed a bill this week that would give legal protections to drivers who hit protesters with their vehicles while fleeing during a riot. The legislation would also create new penalties for rioters.

House Bill 1674, as previously reported by TheBlaze, would create a new section of law to protect motorists that strike one or more persons while fleeing from a riot from criminal liability if the motorist had a reasonable belief that their actions were necessary to protect themselves from serious injury or death. The bill would also impose penalties for protesters that "unlawfully obstruct streets or highways, blocking vehicles," KFOR-TV reported.

"We actually saw this happen here in Oklahoma last year when a Tulsa family was surrounded by rioters. Through no fault of their own, they were caught in a dangerous situation, and fearing for their lives, they were attempting to get away," bill sponsor state Sen. Rob Standridge (R) said. "The prosecutor declined to file charges, but that may not always be the case. This bill will protect innocent people trapped by a rioting mob."

Here is video of the incident to which Standridge referred:

Any driver who "unintentionally causes injury or death" while fleeing from a riot in their vehicle would be protected under the proposed law.

Individuals who "unlawfully obstruct" approaching vehicles from using a public street, highway, or road or endanger a vehicle's or person's safe movement would be subject to misdemeanor penalties. Those found guilty could be punishable by up to one year in county jail and/or a fine ranging from $100 to $500, as well as liability for damage to person or property, according to KFOR-TV.

"This bill adds to language in existing law regarding riots and is directly in line with the Tulsa district attorney's decision over the summer that protected a motorist fleeing a riot," state Rep. Kevin West (R), one of the bill's co-authors, explained. "This is an important protection for citizens who are just trying to get out of a bad situation. When fleeing an unlawful riot, they should not face threat of prosecution for trying to protect themselves, their families or their property."

However, critics say the bill would infringe upon Oklahomans' right to protest.

CAIR-OK, the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, released a statement opposing the bill after it passed the Senate Wednesday.

"This law is dangerous and meant to discourage Oklahomans from exercising their constitutional right to peaceful protest," CAIR-OK government affairs director Lani R. Habrock said. "This bill is one of many across the country seeking to suppress the voice of the people."

In a statement to TheBlaze, Standridge responded to CAIR-OK, characterizing the incident in Tulsa last summer as a violent crime committed against the family in the vehicle.

"Surrounding a vehicle full of innocent people, then threatening to drag them out and beat them up, is not constitutionally-protected, it's not peaceful, and it's not a protest. It's a crime. If it's illegal to hitchhike on the interstate, which it is, it certainly should be illegal to deliberately block traffic and menacingly threaten passersby," Standridge said. "If we ignore what happened in Tulsa last summer it emboldens every anarchist and Marxist to run roughshod through our streets."

The bill now heads to Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt for either his signature or veto.

Horowitz: Oklahoma House votes to enable legislature to block Biden’s executive orders



James Madison once asserted that "in a republican government, the legislative authority necessarilypredominates." Well, today, only executive power predominates, because federal and state executive agencies seem to be the only ones doing the legislating. As Joe Biden continues to pass sweeping "laws" unilaterally with no authority from Congress, the red states are the only even potential check on his abuse of power. It appears that the state of Oklahoma has now taken up the mantle as the second state to move to block these executive orders.

On Thursday, the Oklahoma House overwhelmingly passed a bill, HB 1236, that would grant the state's attorney general and state legislature the authority to review the president's executive orders to determine constitutionality. Specifically, the bill would authorize the legislature to recommend that the attorney general review any executive order, federal agency rule, or federal congressional action to determine whether the state should seek an exemption or declare it unconstitutional. If either the attorney general or the legislature, by concurrent resolution, declares the act unconstitutional, then all state and local officials and any publicly funded organization are prohibited from enforcing it.

The federal actions covered under this bill include any orders pertaining to health emergencies; the regulation of natural resources, agriculture, and land use; infringements upon the Second Amendment; the regulation of the financial sector as it relates to environmental, social, or governance standards, the regulation of education; the regulation of college or school sports; or any other powers reserved by the State of Oklahoma or the people of Oklahoma.

This bill is probably the single most direct and effective way of countering federal power-grabs. As written, it would potentially pave the way for the legislature to block Biden's mask mandate, transgender agenda in school sports, and racially biased orders in finance and commerce, just to name a few.

Oklahoma's House is now the second chamber to pass a state sovereignty bill against federal overreach. The North Dakota House passed a similar bill, HB 1282, earlier this month. However, that bill passed by a narrow margin, 51-43, with nearly 30 Republicans voting against it. The Oklahoma bill, on the other hand, was introduced by the speaker himself, Rep. Charles McCall, and passed 79-18 along party lines, which means it has a good chance of going to the governor's desk.

A few minutes after passage of HB 1236, Rep. Jay Steagall introduced HR 1005, a resolution expressing the right of a state to defend the Constitution and intervene on behalf of the liberties of its citizens.

"Oklahoma hereby asserts sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers," states the text of the resolution, which passed 80-14. "THAT this resolution shall serve notice to the federal government of our intent to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it. THAT we intend to ensure that all federal government agencies and their agents and employees operating within the geographic boundaries of Oklahoma, or whose actions have an effect on the inhabitants, lands or waters of Oklahoma, shall operate within the confines of the original intent of the Constitution of the United States."

In introducing the bill, Rep. Steagall, who is the chairman of the States Rights Committee, stated plainly the intent of the legislative effort this week. "I submit to you that it is the duty of the state to interpose between the central government's abuse of power and the people in order to secure the authorities, rights, and liberties of the people, and that duty falls squarely on the shoulders of the state legislature."

While so many conservatives are focused on Congress, many fail to see that the states are where the power resides. Republicans control both houses in 31 state legislatures, the majority of them with supermajorities. If every chamber were to mimic this legislation, there would be large swaths of the country free from the totalitarian edicts of the left, regardless of what happens in Washington.

Oklahoma Republican's bill would ban critical race theory from being taught in school



An Oklahoma state lawmaker is seeking to ban teaching "divisive concepts" from critical race theory in state schools, pushing a for a law that would permit teachers to be fired for doing so.

State Sen. Shane Jett (R) is the author of Senate Bill 803, legislation that would explicitly prohibit the teaching of critical race theory and its components in the state of Oklahoma. In an interview with TheBlaze Wednesday, Jett said that while proponents of critical race theory promise to improve race relations, what's being taught in schools actually creates a racial divide.

"It's teaching divisive concepts and ideology to young people," Jett told TheBlaze. "It is Marxist in origin and it's designed to cause children to, instead of looking at what makes us unique and special and American, it causes them to pit themselves against each other based on the color of their skin."

Jett's bill prohibits Oklahoma public schools and public charter schools, starting from kindergarten to high school, from "teaching, instructing or training" any student to believe in "divisive concepts."

Divisive concepts as defined in the legislation would, for example, promote the idea that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex" or that "the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist." Schools would not be allowed to teach that "an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously" or that "an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex."

Other "divisive concepts" include the idea that "an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex," or that "meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by a particular race to oppress another race."

"The fundamental equality that is part of the American ideal is what we're trying to underscore here," Jett said.

Opponents of the bill accuse Jett of wanting to silence conversations about race in public schools.

"It was racially insensitive I thought. It was not a well-written bill; it seems like it said we don't care and we are going to say these things," Democratic state Sen. George Young said in an interview with KFOR.

"You are going to penalize teachers that teach the truth," he charged.

Shannon Fleck, executive director of the Oklahoma Conference of Churches, told KFOR that "race is an active issue" for people of color in Oklahoma.

"It's offensive to all people in Oklahoma that conversations about racism are so divisive that they shouldn't be happening. That's the opposite of how to solve problems in our country and in our state," she said.

Jett, a Cherokee American, strongly objected to critics who say his bill would punish teachers for discussing racial issues in schools.

"My wife is from Brazil, a third of her family down in Brazil would be considered people of color, and racism isn't something that we tolerate," Jett said. "I'm a Cherokee Indian. My mom is Cherokee, my dad is Irish. And so we talk about things that happen in the past honestly, engaged, hard-hitting. How do we fix it? How do we make sure it doesn't happen in the future?"

But critical race theory, in Jett's view, teaches some American children that they are oppressed and that their classmates with a different skin color are the oppressors.

"Instead of teaching equality and harmony and celebrating our progress in American history, this experiment in freedom, they are instead telling children to forget that. The very foundation of the American government is flawed, is racist. And if you're white, you are by definition a racist and you don't even know it. And if you're a person of color, then you are oppressed and you've been victimized. And it's by the other side of the classroom who are white, they have done it and their ancestors," Jett said.

"They are literally teaching animosity," he continued, characterizing the tenets of critical race theory as child abuse. "The bill basically says you can no longer do this. You cannot abuse public school kids at taxpayers' expense and try to get them to distrust each other, distrust American history and then completely rewrite our history."

By introducing his bill, Jett said he wants to have a dialogue and honest debate about race in America "in the context of truth and not in the context of a Marxist ideology that completely ignores the tremendous progress that this society has made."

Critical Race Theory

Jett's legislation is a direct repudiation of popular concepts in academia collectively known as critical race theory. CRT is a worldview that claims most laws and systems in America were historically rooted in the racist oppression of black people and other marginalized groups. It began as a legal movement in the 1970s in response to perceptions that progress made by the civil rights movement was insufficient. Among its influences are Marxism, post-modernism, radical feminism, and other schools of leftist political and cultural thought.

As defined by University of Alabama law professor Richard Delgado and his wife Jean Stefancic in their book, "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction," CRT is "a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power."

"Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law," they wrote.

According to this worldview, racism in the United States is structural. America's laws, institutions, and cultural representations are viewed to work together in ways that perpetuate racial inequity, or the unequal distribution of society's benefits or burdens based on skin color. "White privilege" is the historical and contemporary advantage supposedly shared by people with a fair skin color, their access to society's benefits and shielding from society's burdens. American national values like individualism, individual responsibility, meritocracy, fairness, or equal treatment are said to ignore the realities of structural racism tell a lie that anyone in this country can make whatever they want of themselves, regardless of what they look like or where they come from.

This worldview has found widespread acceptance in academia and became mainstream in American politics and news media following racial unrest nationwide after the death of George Floyd in police custody and subsequent violent protests by the Black Lives Matter movement.

The New York Times' controversial "1619 Project," which sought to reframe American history "understanding 1619," the year the first African slaves were brought to America, "as our true founding," is one example of critical race theory's widespread influence.

Another recent example is the controversy involving Coca-Cola, in which an employee claimed racial sensitivity training used a course called "Confronting Racism" that taught employees "to be less white." The training stated that "To be less white is to:" "be less oppressive," "be less arrogant," "be less certain," "be less defensive," "be less ignorant," "be more humble," "listen," "believe," "break with apathy," and to "break with white solidarity."

Aspects and assumptions of "whiteness," as explained by a publication from the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History & Culture that went viral on social media, include ideas like "self-reliance," "the nuclear family," emphasis on the scientific method, "the primacy of Western (Greek, Roman) and Judeo-Christian tradition," the Protestant work ethic, "Christianity," "rigid time schedules," and more.

The National Museum of African American History & Culture wants to make you aware of certain signs of whiteness: In… https://t.co/YsjtzZQYJO
— Byron York (@Byron York)1594814759.0

This is all derivative of critical race theory.

Believers, proponents, and defenders of CRT argue the worldview helps identify areas where racial inequities exist and give policy makers and educators the tools to correct longstanding injustices.

"It's an approach to grappling with a history of white supremacy that rejects the belief that what's in the past is in the past, and that the laws and systems that grow from that past are detached from it," scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw told Time last September. Crenshaw is one of the founding scholars of critical race theory.

But principles of CRT have been applied to make claims of structural oppression of other groups based on sexuality, gender, class, and disability.

"What critical race theory has done is lift up the racial gaze of America," said John Powell, the director of the Othering & Belonging Institute at the UC Berkeley. "It doesn't stay within law, it basically says 'look critically at any text or perspective and try to understand different perspectives that are sometimes drowned out.'"

Teaching CRT in schools

Critical race theory is not only taught at the university level. A survey taken after George Floyd's death found that 81% of U.S. teachers support Black Lives Matter, with public schools in response seeking ways to "revamp" their history curriculums to focus on racial equity. Several U.S. schools had adopted curricula that uses the New York Times' 1619 Project to teach American history with a focus on the legacy of slavery.

The public school system in Buffalo, New York, for example, has adopted a "woke" curriculum that involves showing kindergarteners a dramatized video of dead black children speaking to them from the grave about the dangers of being killed by "racist police and state-sanctioned violence."

The mainstream promotion of critical race theory among the progressive left has inspired pushback from conservatives like Jett and other critics who say the theory distorts American history and promotes racist thinking. Former President Donald Trump denounced CRT as a "Marxist doctrine" that teaches that "America is a wicked and racist nation, that even young children are complicit in oppression." In an executive order, Trump banned the use of critical race theory as a part of diversity training in the federal government. President Joe Biden has since reversed Trump's policy.

Jett's bill would not ban discussions of racism, or significant historic events like the institution of slavery or the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921, the single worst incident of racial violence in America. Instead, he hopes that school discussions on racial issues will occur as an honest dialogue about how people were wronged in the past, the progress America has made to correct those wrongs, and how America can continue to repudiate racism in the future instead of a blanket worldview that claims racism is inherent in white people.

"We are making tremendous progress," Jett told TheBlaze. "I can see it in my military unit. I served 11 years as a Navy intelligence officer in the United States Navy. We were the complete spectrum of the rainbow, but guess what? We weren't looking at the color of our skin. What we were looking at is making sure our warfighters overseas had the material that they needed, the information they needed so they could get home to their families, American families."

He observed that the prevalence of discussions about critical race theory in America is itself evidence that America has made racial progress and that people are willing to have this debate.

"We are looking to have an honest conversation. We're looking to make this a more perfect union, right? But what they promise and what they deliver are completely two different things. They say we're gonna have a great discussion, we're going to improve. But then when you start drilling down to what they're actually teaching, they're ignoring or even whitewashing, dare I say, our history and then telling us that we are fundamentally racist for being the color that we were born and that people of color are victims of those who are white."

Senate Bill 803 has been assigned to the Education Committee in the state Senate, and while the bill has been endorsed by state House Speaker Charles McCall (R), Jett indicated that some Republican leaders on the committee were hesitant to advance his legislation.

"There's a reluctance to take a stand on this because we get called a racist for wanting to have an honest dialogue," Jett said. "I felt like someone needed to do something, and so I did."

Horowitz: When conservatives can’t even guarantee Second Amendment protection in Oklahoma ...



When Donald Trump became president and it was widely assumed that there would be a crackdown on illegal immigration, Democrats swiftly moved to create a sanctuary for illegal aliens in every state they fully controlled. Well, if Democrats could create a sanctuary for people who have no right to be in the country, most certainly one would expect Republicans to create sanctuaries for Americans and constitutional rights in the states they control, right?

Think again.

Following this election in Oklahoma, Republicans will hold an 82-19 majority in the state House and a 39-9 majority in the Senate. Those are greater supermajorities than what Democrats hold in California. One would think that this state would be a sanctuary for freedom during coronavirus fascism, for self-defense during the era of BLM and gun confiscation, and all-around fiscal and social conservatism in an era of ubiquitous socialism and cultural Marxism. The problem with that assumption, though, is that conservatives don't really have any majority, much less a supermajority. Liberal Republicans, who, by and large, are the less attractive side of the tyranny coin from the Democrats, are the ones who hold that majority.

In the days following the election, News 9 reported that Oklahoma state Sen. Nathan Dahm is drafting legislation to make the Sooner State a sanctuary from any potential unconstitutional violations of the First and Second Amendments in pursuit of a gun control agenda under a Joe Biden administration.

"A lot of how the feds try to implement these things is through local law enforcement, whether it's county sheriffs, local police departments, and they try to attach funding to that to force those cities and counties to do that," Dahm told News 9 in explaining the logic behind his proposal. "So what we could do is make sure that those cities and counties don't accept any federal funding to implement any gun control measures."

So why hasn't this bill become law, given the GOP's dominance in the legislature and the fact that such legislation has already been introduced in some form for several years?

"The Republicans have killed it in the state Senate each time," said Don Spencer, president of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association, in an interview with Personal Defense World. "The Republicans are the problem of why you cannot get pro-Second Amendment legislation done in the state of Oklahoma. We have a supermajority in the Senate, a supermajority in the House and we have the Governor's office, so there is no one else to blame."

Across the country, Republicans are disenfranchising conservatives on nearly every issue of our time. If illegal aliens have states where they can go and claim sanctuary, why can't Americans find a constitutional sanctuary against gun-grabbing and coronavirus fascism in any state?

What about morals and values? Despite Republicans controlling the trifecta of government in Oklahoma, conservatives have failed for years to pass meaningful legislation protecting life for the unborn. The only successful measures they seem to pass are jailbreak provisions to weaken sentencing and deterrent for criminals.

Obviously, issues pertaining to foreign policy and national security are controlled by the federal government. But for conservatives, if they actually had a party representing them, there is no reason why they couldn't enjoy a sanctuary from coronavirus fascism, gun-grabbing, and violent crime and rioting in a substantial portion of the country. Trump likely won over 80% of the nation's counties, and Republicans control the trifecta of government in 24 states. So why is it that there seems to be no place that is an asylum for civil and religious liberty as well as for law and order? Because we refuse to look beyond the wretched Republican Party for our representation.

Putting aside the obvious election fraud for a moment, let's just say Trump lost the election. The reason why the base refuses to let go of Trump is because they don't see anyone else in the party fighting for them. Everyone is focused like a laser beam on the Senate elections in Georgia as if the world hangs in the balance based on their outcome. But we all know that the Left will continue to enact its policies administratively (as they are successfully doing now in the states even under Trump) and Republicans will do nothing meaningful with control of the Senate to stop that through budget fights.

Again, just look at all the states where Republicans hold supermajorities – and we still have tyranny. Why should a slim RINO majority in the Senate matter at all if Republicans already have robust majorities on the state level and refuse to govern in accordance with constitutional values? If 82-19 majorities are not enough for us to acquire our own version of California, it is quite evident that there is nothing worth salvaging in this party.