Fitzgerald Promotes Community Policing in Houston

Vox Libertatis Freedom Index 2025 Recap It has been one full year under a Republican President and Senate and, as we have mentioned, it is getting harder to tell where Democrats end and Republicans begin. From pricing workers out of a job to breaking up free enterprise, the two parties are seemingly in lock step in their mission to destroy the free market. The big exception is foreign policy where President Van Horn has led the U.S. in a bold new direction and the neoconservative movement has been marginalized to the Democratic minority and a handful of fringe Republicans like Senator Elizabeth Hunt (R-AL) who continues to wants to rage [expletive deleted] any country that looks at us wrong. With one year of the 119th Session of Congress in the books, here’s your Freedom Index for 2025. Happy New Year! The Good Leading the pack is Senator John Burton of Ohio and Senator Nate Calloway of Nebraska. These two bucked the far left lurch of the Republican Party after President Allred’s death to stick to one time conservative principles of free trade and restoring the private healthcare market. Senator Calloway is more traditionally conservative, but did some outstanding speeches at CATO of all places, defending free trade and entitlement reform. ‘[T]rade, like liberty, is a cornerstone of our republic,’ says Calloway. Burton put words into action, however, introducing actual legislation to restore free trade and save Medicare from its imminent demise. While imperfect, the bold initiatives gave these two the highest scores from a Republican or Democratic member of the U.S. Senate in the two year history of the Freedom Index. Burton gets a B- and Calloway gets a D, so do not rest on your laurels and get too confident just yet. Rounding out the top 3 is Democrat Ross McCallen of Arizona: A self-described ‘moderate’ Democrat, McCallen was not afraid to honor Arizona’s maverick tradition and still support civil liberties while some of his colleagues do not. The Bad On the bottom end of the spectrum is Democratic Senators Avraham and Baudelaire of Massachusetts, hindered mainly by a vestigial hawkish foreign policy and an extremely far left voting history, respectively. Foreign policy, immigration, and Medicare expansion kept Senator Sizemore of PA down into 2025. Republican Senator Albion of Ohio is forever dead to us after dumping billions of tax dollars into Lake Erie and while our old friend, Commie Kahiona, has lost her ever loving mind, veering so far extreme right on foreign policy into Senator Hunt (R-AL) level I-want-to-rage-[expletive deleted]-istan. For America’s sake, we hope all the neocons go on a one-way hunting trip with Dick Cheney. Neoconservatism is dead, it just took 17 years to count the buckshot. Meanwhile, Senator Minority Leader Rafael Coleman (D-CO) saw the most improvement between sessions due to his leadership on marijuana legalization and not having his name on every horrible piece of legislation again this session (that honor goes to the President). The Ugly One time leaders like Senator Earl Duplantis (R-LA), Levi Keonig (R-FL), and President Van Horn (R-KY) dropped significantly for championing and ushering through the People’s First Agenda and their ridiculous obsession with fish. One time VLFI leader Koenig plummeted the most between sessions for his wholesale allegiance to the People’s First Agenda and flip flop on minimum wage. We now live in a world where Bernie Bros are Republicans, neocons are Democrats, and we are neither at war with Eastasia nor Eurasia. President Van Horn’s triumphant policy of non-aggression kept him alive but just under the median this time due to the twin demons of his economic populism and Executive Order spree. His ranking also may be muted by not participating in our questionnaire. What, like the White House has been busy, or something? Methodology On the subject of questionnaires, we updated our methodology this time to give a chance for Senators to at least allege their positions to us, in confidence, to help flesh out a clearer picture on important issues that the Senate has yet to take action on. *cough, cough* #Legalize4/20 2026??? *cough* 53.57% responded to our questionnaire and everyone who did saw a statistically significant improvement in their scores of +13 points on average, even when they are wrong. While we appreciate the sometimes hilarious qualitative responses, this is a quantitative rubric and in most cases, it only ended up reducing respondents' scores. Keep the hate mail coming though: We will publish a greatest hits one day. If anyone did not get a chance to complete the questionnaire this time, we are continuing to accept them on a rolling basis. The mean overall was a 34.32%, which is an F-, but the mean from survey respondents was 47.09%; still an F- but a high F-. Observations Without giving any names, there are some interesting observations from aggregate survey responses. First and foremost, 76.67% of respondents support marijuana legalization, even more than the 70% of Americans broadly in a 2023 PEW poll. Someone call Coleman: Its 4/20 some year? 80% said they do not oppose the right to bear arms (is that triple negative?) and 53.33% agree that the U.S. intervenes too much in other countries. To demonstrate the accuracy of this poll, (or how much Congress is a bunch of liars,) we asked if optimal wages are best determined by the market. 100% of the 50% who said they support free market wages voted to double the minimum wage last year. A clearer sign than ever that our public education system is failing us. Future of the Vox Libertatis Freedom Index Going forward, we will continue to update the Freedom Index each year, and send out new questionnaires but the outstanding previous questionnaires will also still be accepted indefinitely. We will do ad hoc Freedom Indices for important high profile races as in 2024 and are experimenting with adding a multidimensional model which will provide breakdown where a person stands on foreign policy, economic, and individual liberty. For example, President Van Horn scores very high on foreign policy but lower on economic liberty so his Index is really more of an odd L shape that the average does not fully highlight. We will continue to do our best to keep you informed and urge our elected leaders to always: #ChooseFreedom @TexAgRepublican@Elizabeth Hunt R-AL@Kandler@Albion@Brushbeck@Avner@Sovereign@Alaskansockeyepuffs@camilodeso@DMH@Jack

Istanbul Accords: Fragile Peace or a Gamble with Ukraine's Future? By Jared Kane, International Correspondent for Capitol Compass For several years of war and after untold devastation ravaged the country, the Ukraine-Russia Treaty dubbed the Istanbul Accords, has emerged as one of the most consequential moments of the decade. It is a promise of peace and stability. But it is built upon a bedrock of the same devastation that took hold of Ukraine when the war started in 2022. This treaty has been framed as a path to stability. Still, it has sparked intense debate across the globe, raising questions about its long-term implications for Ukraine's sovereignty. It's also a test of the resilience of democratic principles in the face of authoritarian aggression. The crux of the accords is the status of the Crimea Peninsula. This region, occupied by Russia in 2014 despite heavy international opposition, is heavy with symbolism for both nations. The agreement asserts Ukraine's formal sovereignty over the peninsula while granting Russia administrative control for the next two decades. This lease will cost Moscow $1 billion annually and a share of the revenue generated from the region's development. Oversight of this portion of the agreement will fall to an independent commission comprised of representatives from the OSCE, Turkey, China, and India. Supporters of the agreement view this compromise as a pragmatic resolution to an entrenched stalemate. At the same time, critics argue that it risks legitimizing territorial conquests and sets a dangerous precedent. By allowing Russia to retain any semblance of control, even temporarily, raises uncomfortable questions about the price of aggression and fragility of international norms. The accords also address the status of contested regions of Donetsk and Luhansk provinces. It grants them autonomy within Ukraine's borders. This concession on Ukraine's part acknowledges the realities of a divided population, particularly in areas with a significant Russian-speaking population. One could argue that proponents believe this measure could ease tensions and foster peaceful coexistence in the regions. At the same time, skeptics may fear it entrenches divisions and emboldens separatist movements. The most critical part of the agreement, especially in the eyes of Western powers, is Ukraine's neutrality pledge. This pledge is a sharp departure from its previous aspirations to join NATO. In exchange, Ukraine has been given security guarantees from major powers, including the United States, China, India, and Turkey. The White House argued, through an interview with the White House Press Secretary Ammon Rasmussen, that this was a "course correction from the last administration" and that it was necessary. To ensure peace, a demilitarized zone monitored by peacekeepers from Austria, China, Singapore, and Indonesia aims to provide stability and prevent renewed hostilities. While this is an attempt at fostering a lasting peace, the challenges of maintaining security in such a volatile environment remain daunting. The final part of the treaty is economic reconstruction; under the Istanbul Accords, Turkey and India will lead efforts to rebuild Ukraine's shattered infrastructure. Russia has also pledged financial support, though one could be concerned about the integrity and effectiveness of these commitments. For many Ukrainians, the prospect of rebuilding offers a glimmer of hope, tempered by concerns that inefficiency or corruption could ultimately undermine recovery efforts. This agreement underscores a shift in global power dynamics for the United States. With China and India playing such prominent roles in brokering the peace, America's position as the guarantor of democracy and democratic values faces significant challenges. Domestically, reactions have been mixed. The White House is proud to say that President Van Horn successfully brought the President of Russia and Ukraine to the table, saying, "This was a truly groundbreaking achievement and one that will promote peace in Eastern Europe and around the globe." Skeptics, on the other hand, like Chair of the Senate Progressive Caucus Osiris Storm, claim that the President "left Ukraine cornered into a bad deal." European powers like Germany, France, and the UK are all cautiously optimistic about the Istanbul Accords and the future of peace. While Poland, Estonia, Canada, and other Eastern European NATO countries are privately lived, believing the treaty to be a direct betrayal of the Ukrainian people. Still, despite all of this, many observers, myself included, remain uneasy. The Istanbul Accords reflect a series of painful compromises that, while understandably necessary to end the war, could further erode the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity that underpin international law. Allowing an aggressor, like Russia, to maintain control over seized land, even under stringent conditions like those imposed in the accords, risks emboldening future acts of aggression. Ultimately, history will decide whether the Istanbul Accords represent an authentic and genuine step towards lasting peace or a strategic gamble that encourages those willing to rewrite borders through force and intimidation. For Ukraine, the stakes could not be higher. The nation's extraordinary resilience to the Russian onslaught has carried it through the darkest days of the war. Its future now hinges not only on its own determination but also on the international community's resolve to uphold the accords and hold Russia accountable. The world watches and holds its breath as one question remains unanswered: Can this fragile peace withstand its underlying contradictions, or will it be remembered as a missed opportunity by the West to defend freedom and democratic values with unwavering conviction? Full text of the Istanbul Accords can be found here:

Thank you. It's refreshing to hear at least one congratulations from your side of the aisle. I much appreciate and respect that. But let me tell you, I don't think anyone should mistake my position here. Sweatshops and exploitation? Terrible, absolutely terrible. Nobody, and I mean nobody, supports that. But what I've said, and what I'll say again, is that we need to think smart. Not emotional, not knee-jerk, but smart. Look, we can slap sanctions on foreign operators, and it makes for a great soundbite, but let's be real: sanctions often hurt the very people we're trying to help. You cut off trade and suddenly those workers aren't just in tough conditions, they're unemployed. And let me tell you, jobless poverty is a lot worse. I'm not going to pretend otherwise. What we need to do is lead. For years, we have used sanctions to bully other nations to end sweatshops, and what were the results? Not great. American companies are the best in the world at raising standards. When we trade, when we invest, we bring better jobs, better wages, better working conditions. We set the tone. That's how you outcompete the sweatshops, not with sanctions that push workers into even darker corners of the economy. And, for those American companies that do condone sweatshops and exploit workers in foreign countries for the sake of keeping the product cost low and increasing your profit margin, screw you. You hurt innocent lives to line your pocket. I'm talking to you Apple. I'm talking to you Dell and Microsoft and Google and Nike and H&M and Forever 21 and all of you who exploit human lives. The day of reckoning is coming. We will no longer sit by silently and allow you to steal American jobs, ship them overseas and employ cheap child labor that work the mines in Africa, the factories in China, and anywhere else. This is indentured servitude and I can't stand it. We will treat you guys like we treat nations who rip off America. We will ensure your products are faced with tariffs, treating them as imports. I don't care what you make, but make sure it's made either here in American with high standards or if made overseas, ensure that you are following human rights laws and the standards you follow here in the United States. And, if you break rules and exploit workers, you're done. We'll impose fines so high they'll make your CEO sweat blood, and then we'll ban you from federal contracts and work with our allies to cut you out of global trade networks. Exploitation will have consequences. Play fair, respect human dignity, or face the full force of an American economy that is fed up with greed and exploitation. The day of reckoning isn't just coming, it's here. Let me say this and then I'm done. America has the best standards in the world regarding labor laws, safety laws, whatever. American companies should be held to a high standard and lead by example when doing business in foreign countries. This is how we protect workers abroad and, most importantly, here at home.