For years, Oklahomans have been told that the Lieutenant Governor’s primary job is tourism, economic development, and promoting the state.

But that’s not what the Oklahoma Constitution says.

The Oklahoma Constitution designates the Lieutenant Governor as the President of the Oklahoma Senate. The office exists not only as a successor to the Governor, but as a constitutional officer with direct responsibilities connected to the legislative process.

Yet many Oklahomans would struggle to name a single major Senate debate, legislative fight, or accountability effort led by a Lieutenant Governor in recent years.

Why?

What the Constitution Says

The Lieutenant Governor serves as President of the Senate.

That includes:

• Presiding over Senate sessions.

• Ruling on parliamentary questions.

• Presiding over joint legislative sessions.

• Casting tie-breaking votes when necessary.

• Serving as the first constitutional successor to the Governor.

While day-to-day Senate operations are largely controlled by the President Pro Tempore and Senate leadership, the Lieutenant Governor still possesses a constitutional platform and visibility that most statewide elected officials would envy.

The question is not whether the office controls every aspect of the Senate.

The question is whether the office is being fully used on behalf of the people.

The Curious Shift

Somewhere along the way, the public perception of the Lieutenant Governor’s office changed.

Instead of being viewed as a constitutional watchdog within the legislative process, the office increasingly became associated with:

• Tourism campaigns.

• Economic development initiatives.

• Ribbon cuttings.

• Promotional events.

• Marketing Oklahoma.

There is nothing inherently wrong with promoting Oklahoma.

But if tourism has become the primary focus of the office, what happened to the constitutional responsibilities tied to the Senate?

Why has the public heard more about marketing campaigns than legislative accountability?

Following the Evolution of the Office

A review of recent Lieutenant Governors reveals a pattern worth examining.

Historical Role vs. Modern Practice

Notice what is missing.

Few citizens can identify major instances where the office has become a leading voice for investigating agency failures, challenging legislative leadership, or elevating concerns repeatedly brought forward by constituents.

That does not necessarily mean Lieutenant Governors have failed in their duties.

It does mean voters should ask whether the office is being utilized to its full constitutional potential.

Questions for Current and Future Lieutenant Governor Candidates

Every candidate seeking the office should be asked:

1. What specific role do you believe the Lieutenant Governor should play within the Oklahoma Senate?

2. Have recent Lieutenant Governors properly utilized the constitutional authority of the office?

3. Should the Lieutenant Governor be more involved in public discussions regarding:

   • Government accountability?

   • Agency oversight?

   • Constitutional rights?

   • Taxpayer concerns?

   • Legislative transparency?

4. If elected, how often would you publicly report to citizens on Senate activities and major legislation?

5. What would you do differently from recent officeholders?

The Issues Oklahomans Want Addressed

Many citizens are not asking for more tourism advertisements.

They are asking questions about:

• Property taxes.

• Government spending.

• Child welfare oversight.

• Education outcomes.

• Healthcare costs.

• Regulatory burdens.

• Agency accountability.

• Transparency in government.

If those are the concerns being raised at town halls, legislative meetings, and community events, should the Lieutenant Governor’s office be spending more time helping elevate those discussions?

Or should the office remain primarily focused on economic development and tourism initiatives?

Working for the System or the People?

This is ultimately the question.

If government exists to serve the people, then every constitutional office should be used to its fullest extent to represent the interests of the citizens who elected its occupant.

When parents spend years asking lawmakers for help with broken systems...

When taxpayers demand accountability...

When agencies receive billions of dollars while complaints continue to grow...

When citizens repeatedly feel ignored by those in power...

Shouldn’t a statewide elected official with a constitutional role in the Senate be asking questions?

Shouldn’t they be using their platform to amplify the voices of the people?

A Challenge to Every Candidate

The next time a candidate for Lieutenant Governor asks for your vote, ask them a simple question:

Do you view this office as Oklahoma’s chief tourism ambassador, or as a constitutional officer charged with helping ensure government remains accountable to the people?

Their answer may tell you everything you need to know.

Because the Oklahoma Constitution created the office for more than cutting ribbons and promoting tourism.

Perhaps it is time for Oklahomans to have a serious conversation about whether the office is being used to its full constitutional purpose—and whether future officeholders intend to represent the interests of the system or the interests of the people.

Most Oklahomans have never heard of the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR).

That’s a problem.

The CFSR is the federal government’s official review of each state’s child welfare system. Conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through the Administration for Children and Families, the review evaluates whether states are adequately protecting children, preserving families when possible, achieving permanency, and ensuring children’s overall well-being.

In simple terms, it’s the closest thing Oklahoma receives to a federal report card on how DHS and the child welfare system are performing.

What Is the CFSR?

The Child and Family Services Review was created to determine whether states are complying with federal child welfare requirements and whether children and families are actually experiencing positive outcomes.

The review examines:

• Child safety

• Family preservation efforts

• Foster care practices

• Reunification efforts

• Permanency outcomes

• Child and family well-being

• System accountability and oversight

The review process occurs in rounds approximately every five years and includes extensive case reviews, interviews, stakeholder feedback, and analysis of state performance data.

Oklahoma’s Round 4 Results

Following Oklahoma’s Round 4 review conducted during 2023-2024, the federal government issued a Final Report identifying areas requiring improvement.

As a result, Oklahoma was required to develop and submit a Program Improvement Plan (PIP), which was approved on May 9, 2025.

A Program Improvement Plan is not a voluntary exercise.

It is required when a state is determined to be out of substantial conformity with federal expectations in one or more reviewed areas. The purpose is to address deficiencies and create measurable improvements that are monitored by the federal government.

In other words, the federal government did not simply say, “Keep up the good work.”

It said, “You have problems that must be fixed.”

Why Should Families Care?

Because the issues identified by federal reviewers often mirror the concerns families have been reporting for years.

Across Oklahoma, parents have raised concerns about:

• Lack of family preservation efforts before removal

• Failure to consider less restrictive alternatives

• Delays in services

• Communication breakdowns

• Lack of accountability

• Concerns regarding investigations and case decision-making

• Difficulty obtaining meaningful oversight

For years, many of these concerns have been dismissed as isolated incidents or “one-off” situations.

Yet when the federal government conducts a comprehensive review and requires a formal improvement plan, it raises an obvious question:

How many “one-offs” does it take before a pattern exists?

Can Oklahoma Lose Federal Funding?

Potentially, yes.

Federal law allows financial penalties when states fail to successfully complete required Program Improvement Plans or fail to address identified deficiencies. The entire purpose of the CFSR process is to ensure compliance with federal child welfare requirements tied to federal funding streams.

The goal is improvement, not punishment. However, the federal government does not conduct these reviews merely as suggestions.

States are expected to demonstrate measurable progress.

Why This Matters During Election Season

Many of the same elected officials who have overseen Oklahoma’s child welfare system during these findings are now asking voters for another term in office.

Some are running for reelection.

Some are running for higher office.

Before voters hand out another term, perhaps a few questions deserve answers.

Questions Voters Should Ask Incumbents

1. What specific findings in Oklahoma’s Round 4 CFSR concern you the most?

2. Have you personally reviewed Oklahoma’s Final Report and Program Improvement Plan?

3. What actions have you taken to address the deficiencies identified by federal reviewers?

4. How will you measure success beyond simply increasing funding?

5. What independent oversight exists to ensure agencies are accurately reporting their own performance?

6. How do you ensure that family preservation and least restrictive alternatives are being considered before removals occur?

7. What safeguards exist when parents report errors, omissions, or misconduct within the system?

8. How will you ensure that Oklahoma completes its Program Improvement Plan successfully?

9. What accountability measures should exist when federal reviews repeatedly identify systemic concerns?

10. If the federal government says improvements are needed, why should voters believe the system is functioning adequately today?

The Bigger Question

The issue is not whether child protection is necessary.

Of course it is.

The issue is whether Oklahoma’s system is delivering both safety and due process while respecting families, using resources wisely, and following the law.

Federal reviewers have now identified areas requiring improvement.

Oklahoma has been placed under a formal Program Improvement Plan.

The real question is whether elected officials will treat this as a serious warning or simply another report that gets filed away until the next review cycle.

Voters deserve answers before they cast their ballots.

Because if a federal report card says improvement is needed, citizens should be asking why.

As we head toward Oklahoma’s June 16 Primary, voters are starting to see the usual flood of candidate endorsements, parent pledges, mailers, text messages, and political promises.

For incumbents especially, here’s the real question:

Without the fluff, talking points, manipulation, or carefully crafted campaign ads — why should you be sent back to office for another term?

This legislative session gave Oklahomans a front-row seat to who was truly willing to stand up and fight for the people… and who stayed silent while government continued to grow.

We watched lawmakers expose waste, fraud, abuse, government overreach, bloated budgets, and policies that continue failing Oklahoma families. We also watched many incumbents quietly vote against reform efforts in committees — killing legislation before the public ever saw it reach the floor.

And if legislation did survive long enough to make it to a floor vote? Too often, the priority became:

• More government

• More spending

• More bureaucracy

• More “oversight”

• More taxpayer dollars wasted

All while the Oklahoma legislature passed the largest budget in state history instead of seriously addressing the size and inefficiency of government itself.

Meanwhile, members of the Oklahoma Freedom Caucus, and some across the aisle called attention to these issues in both chambers. Rather than being heard, some were mocked, sidelined, or even removed from committees.

As voters, this is where your homework matters.

If an incumbent receives endorsements:

• Ask who is funding those endorsements.

• Check campaign finance reports.

• Follow the money.

If they signed a “parent rights” pledge:

• Compare the pledge to their actual voting record.

• Did they speak up when parental rights were violated?

• Did they support legislation protecting families?

• Or were they silent when it mattered most?

Words are easy during election season.
Voting records are harder to explain away.

Oklahoma voters have an opportunity this primary season to stop voting based on:

• popularity,

• political connections,

• incumbency,

• fear,

• or who has the biggest fundraising machine.

Instead, vote based on actions.

This election is about deciding whether Oklahoma continues accepting the status quo — or whether voters finally demand leaders who remember they work for the people, not political machines, lobbyists, or insider networks.

Have faith in new leadership.
Help get people to the polls for the June 16 Primary.
Do your homework.
Read voting records.
Study campaign finances.
Ask hard questions.

And for many voters frustrated with the direction of Oklahoma politics, a good place to start may be what some activists have dubbed:

“Fire the Swamp 7”
(Photo credit: Oklahoma DOGE)

Before another penny of Oklahoma taxpayers’ money is handed over to bloated agencies, failing programs, or expanding bureaucracy, every state agency should undergo a full forensic audit.

Not a surface-level “internal review.”
Not another political talking point.
A real forensic audit.

Oklahomans deserve to know:

• Where the money is actually going

• Who is benefiting

• What programs are failing

• What contracts are being abused

• Where fraud, waste, and corruption exist

• Why taxpayers continue funding systems that produce worse outcomes year after year

And notably, even Grok AI acknowledged there are:
“No clear records of full forensic audits (as opposed to investigative, financial, or program-specific ones) on entire major Oklahoma state agencies that were completed and released without significant delays.”

That alone should concern every taxpayer in this state.

This legislative session exposed a government culture that too often rewards expansion instead of accountability.

More spending.
More agencies.
More oversight boards.
More taxpayer dollars.

But where are the measurable results for Oklahoma families?

Until agencies can prove they have been responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, there should be serious discussion about freezing expansion and reevaluating funding priorities.

Because from what many Oklahomans witnessed this session, it increasingly feels like taxpayers are being forced to fund their own demise:

• higher taxes,

• bigger government,

• fewer protections,

• less accountability,

• and more control over citizens’ lives.

The people deserve transparency before government gets another raise.

Most Oklahomans don’t lack interest in what’s happening at the State Capitol—they lack access.

For too long, staying informed has meant chasing broken links, navigating confusing government websites, and trying to decode legislation written in a language few outside the legal world can understand. By the time most people figure out what a bill actually does, the decision has already been made.

That disconnect hasn’t just been frustrating—it’s been a barrier to real accountability.

The 2026 Oklahoma legislative session—running from January through May—will be remembered for more than just the bills passed or defeated.

It will be remembered as the session where the people of Oklahoma were finally given a real window into what’s happening inside their State Capitol.

For years, everyday citizens have faced an uphill battle trying to stay informed. Watching a committee meeting often meant navigating a maze of state websites, clicking through multiple pages, and hoping the livestream didn’t crash mid-hearing.

That system didn’t just frustrate people—it discouraged participation.

This session, that changed.

And it didn’t take long for both lawmakers and partners to start saying the same thing:

“It has been an invaluable tool.”
— Oklahoma Senator Shane Jett

“What used to take a lot of time and clicking around is now quick and simple, with everything I need in one place… It’s been a real game changer for staying informed and engaged.”
— Stephanie Davis, Canadian County Lions Den

“I gotta admit, it has been nice to have it there and ready at the beginning of the day… it saves a lot of time.”
— Oklahoma Senator Kendal Sacchieri

“This has been needed for ages… It has already made a difference in our ability to inform others of really good and really bad bills timely!”
— Sandra Crosnoe, OKGrassroots

“Having the ability to receive increased transparency and quick feedback loops with grassroots organizations and leadership on legislation has been incredibly beneficial this session… it’s critically important for us as legislators to remain in sync with the people of Oklahoma.”
— Oklahoma Representative Jim Shaw

“The Oklahoma StateLens is a powerful tool that allows easy, timely access to critical legislative information needed to support the mission of our organization.”
— Defending Freedom-OK, Partner

A Collaboration That Shifted the Landscape

What made the difference was an unprecedented collaboration.

• Dayna Mooney, Chair of Moms for Liberty Oklahoma

• Wayne Hill

• Michael Lunsford, New Louisiana Foundation

Together, alongside more than 20 grassroots organizations across Oklahoma, they launched a platform that is already being called a game changer:

Oklahoma StateLens
(oklahoma.statelens.org)

What Makes This Platform Different

This isn’t just another legislative tracking site.

It fundamentally changes how people engage with government.

1. Real-Time Access Without the Headache

No more endless clicking or broken streams. Citizens can quickly access committee meetings and follow legislative activity without technical barriers.

2. Plain-English Bill Explanations

Bills are no longer locked behind legal jargon. Partner groups break them down into clear, understandable summaries—so you don’t need a law degree to know what’s happening.

3. Group-Based Bill Reviews

Over 20 Oklahoma organizations contribute insights, including:

• Clear positions

• Reasoning behind those positions

• Context the average person would otherwise miss

4. Tools for Engagement

This platform doesn’t just inform—it equips:

• Suggested questions for legislators

• Possible amendment language

• Talking points for citizens ready to take action

5. A Resource for Legislators, Too

Legislators often have limited time to review bills before voting. This platform provides:

• Quick insight into stakeholder positions

• Clearer understanding of impacts

• Direct access to groups for clarification

Why This Matters

Let’s be honest: the traditional legislative process can feel overwhelming—even to those who want to be involved.

When information is hard to access, participation drops.

When participation drops, accountability weakens.

What this effort has done is remove that barrier.

It gives power back to:

• Parents

• Taxpayers

• Voters

• Everyday Oklahomans

A New Standard for Transparency

One of the most impactful aspects of this platform is how frequently it’s updated—often multiple times within a 24-hour period during session.

That means:

• People aren’t reacting days later

• They’re informed in real time

• They can engage while decisions are still being made

This is what transparency is supposed to look like.

Final Thoughts

For those who care about the future of Oklahoma—but have felt overwhelmed or shut out—this platform changes the equation.

You no longer have to:

• Dig endlessly for information

• Guess what a bill actually does

• Rely on secondhand interpretations

Now, you can see it for yourself.

And that changes everything.

What Comes Next

This is just the beginning.

While the 2026 legislative session is coming to a close, the work behind Oklahoma StateLens is far from finished. Improvements will be underway during the summer and fall—driven by real-time feedback, growing participation, and a shared commitment to making Oklahoma’s legislative process even more transparent, accessible, and effective.

As we head into the next session, one thing is clear:

This isn’t a one-time solution—it’s an evolving tool built to keep citizens informed, engaged, and empowered.

Stay tuned. What’s coming next will take this even further.

🔗 Explore the platform: oklahoma.statelens.org

Oklahoma operates under a complex web of more than 15 committees, commissions, and agencies tasked with overseeing taxpayer dollars. From legislative budget committees to audit offices, investment boards, and contract review panels, the system appears robust on paper. But in practice, this layered structure often diffuses responsibility rather than strengthening accountability. With so many entities involved, no single body is clearly responsible for ensuring transparency in real time. To understand how money actually moves—and where oversight breaks down—we’re focusing on two key players at the center of it all: Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES), which controls contracts and spending, and Legislative Office of Fiscal Transparency (LOFT), the state’s primary watchdog.

“Oversight” is the word they use.

But what if it’s actually a system designed to avoid accountability?

Oklahoma taxpayers are told there are multiple layers of financial oversight protecting their money.

Committees. Boards. Auditors. Transparency offices.

On paper, it sounds like a fortress.

In reality?

It looks a lot more like a maze.

The System That “Watches” Your Money

At the center of Oklahoma’s financial operations sits
Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services

This agency controls:

• State purchasing

• Vendor contracts

• Billions in taxpayer-funded programs

• Agreements with private companies, nonprofits, and service providers

If you want to understand where your money goes—
you start here.

The Watchdog That Doesn’t Bite

Enter the state’s so-called transparency arm:

Legislative Office of Fiscal Transparency

LOFT was created to:

• Investigate waste

• Expose fraud

• Hold agencies accountable

Sounds powerful.

But here’s the reality:

The last meaningful scrutiny tied to OMES procurement.

• April 2023 → systemic failures in oversight of $3 BILLION in agency purchasing

🚨 The last OMES-focused review🚨

• November 2023 → a budget review, NOT contracts

Since then?
No public, contract-level audit of OMES vendor agreements.

Let that sink in

Billions in contracts…

With:

• Private companies

• Nonprofits

• Vendors

And there is no public evidence that Legislative Office of Fiscal Transparency has ever conducted a full, comprehensive, line-by-line forensic audit of all contracts managed by Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services.

The Committee Behind LOFT

LOFT doesn’t operate alone—it’s overseen by a legislative committee:

👉 LOFT Oversight Committee

This committee is made up of:

• House members

• Senate members

• Budget and policy leadership

Typically including:

• Chairs of appropriations/budget committees

• Senior legislative leadership

• Appointed members from both chambers

Key reality:
These are the same lawmakers involved in writing and approving the budget.

If Legislative Office of Fiscal Transparency is the watchdog over Oklahoma taxpayer dollars, then it should include routine, rigorous, transaction-level scrutiny. Without regular forensic-style audits, accountability is delayed, fragmented, and often incomplete. Billions of dollars move through agencies like Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services without continuous, line-by-line verification, leaving taxpayers to rely on after-the-fact reviews rather than real-time protection. Oversight that doesn’t follow every dollar isn’t true accountability—it’s the appearance of it.

The Circular Accountability Problem

Here’s where the system breaks down:

• The Legislature funds agencies

• The Legislature appoints oversight

• The oversight reports back to… the Legislature

THE SAME SYSTEM REVIEWING ITSELF!

Layered Oversight… or Layered Cover?

Oklahoma will tell you there are multiple safeguards… Sounds thorough.

But in practice?

It creates fragmentation:

• No single entity tracks everything

• No single entity is fully responsible

• No real-time accountability

The Result

Fraud, waste, and abuse don’t have to be hidden—they just have to be divided.

Division & Distraction: The Most Effective Tool

While this system operates quietly in the background, something else is happening in plain sight:

Division and distraction.

Oklahomans are constantly pulled into:

• Political party fights

• Social debates

• Media-driven outrage cycles

And while attention is focused there…

Billions move through systems with limited real-time oversight.

Why This Matters

Division serves a purpose:

• It keeps people arguing with each other

• Instead of asking questions of the system itself

Because when people are divided:

• They don’t follow the money

• They don’t demand transparency

• They don’t unify around accountability

The Bigger Picture

The more divided the public becomes, the less accountable the system has to be.

What This Really Is

This isn’t just inefficiency.

This is structural insulation from accountability.

A system where:

• Oversight happens after the money is gone

• Responsibility is spread so thin no one owns it

• Transparency is reactive, not proactive

And here’s the hard truth:

The more layers of oversight they add, the harder it becomes to actually hold anyone accountable.

What Taxpayers Should Be Asking

1. Why are OMES contracts not routinely audited in real time?

2. Why is oversight happening after billions are spent?

3. Who is actually accountable when waste is found?

4. Why are the same lawmakers overseeing the system they created?

5. Why does transparency only appear after problems surface?

This Isn’t Transparency

It’s the appearance of transparency.

A Message to Oklahomans

If you feel like:

• Government is too big to track

• Spending is too complex to follow

• Accountability never seems to happen

You’re not wrong.

But it’s not by accident.

Final Word

This isn’t just mismanagement.

When systems are designed in a way that allows waste to continue unchecked…it starts to look a lot like legalized fraud—carried out under the cover of bureaucracy.

Oversight without enforcement is not accountability.
It’s theater.

If this were truly about child safety, panic would be unnecessary. Calm facts, transparent risk discussions, and informed parental decision-making would be enough. Instead, fear has become the primary tool—because the current policy framework does not function without it.

Are Vaccination Rates Down?

Yes. Routine childhood vaccination rates have declined since 2020, particularly among kindergarten and early elementary-age children. Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged this in its surveillance data.

The reasons are not controversial:

• Pandemic-era school disruptions

• Missed well-child visits

• Increased parental demand for informed consent

• Greater use of lawful exemptions

This reflects a shift in parental behavior—not a sudden collapse in child safety.

Do States Get Paid Per Vaccinated Child?

Not in the simplistic way often implied.

But what is true—and rarely explained—is that vaccination rates indirectly affect funding, authority, and institutional relevance.

How the Incentives Actually Work

Public-health funding is heavily tied to:

• Coverage benchmarks

• Compliance metrics

• “Risk reduction” models

Lower rates do not shrink public-health systems.
They trigger escalation.

The same pattern exists through Medicaid administration, vaccine reimbursement structures, and grant-funded partnerships with nonprofits and advocacy organizations—many of which depend on demonstrating “vaccine hesitancy” to sustain funding.

In short: panic unlocks resources.

Why the Media Narrative Matters

If this were genuinely about risk, we would see:

• Honest discussion of absolute vs. relative risk

• Transparency about lawful exemptions

• Equal attention to informed consent and vaccine injury

Instead, we see:

• Alarmist language

• Parents framed as threats

• Suppression of nuance

• Silence on natural immunity

That pattern points to institutional self-preservation, not public education.

The Line That’s Hardest to Gaslight

Vaccination rates are down.
States are not paid a simple per-child bounty. But funding, authority, and relevance depend on maintaining urgency.

That is not a conspiracy.
It is how bureaucratic incentive structures work.

The most accurate way to say it is this:

Child safety is the stated justification.
Funding streams and institutional survival are the operational drivers.

Bottom Line

Oklahoma’s approach to childhood vaccination enforcement increasingly reflects alignment with Agenda 2030–style public-health governance, not funding necessity. While legal exemptions remain on paper, real-world policies prioritize population-level compliance metrics, risk-based decision-making, and behavior-change strategies promoted by global frameworks such as United Nations Agenda 2030 (SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being) and operationalized through guidance from the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These frameworks emphasize preventive uniformity and “community risk” over individualized rights, resulting in soft-coercive practices—such as exclusion during outbreaks and administrative pressure—that effectively undermine parental choice without changing statute. This represents policy harmonization, where guidance and metrics quietly override constitutional protections and informed consent, even in the absence of funding penalties.

If safety were the priority, transparency would be non-negotiable.
If compliance is the priority, fear becomes the tool.

What we’re seeing looks far more like the second.

Because none of this functions without panic.

One confirmed measles case in Oklahoma.

That is the entire factual basis for the warning letters sent to parents, the alarmist weekend coverage, and the quiet threats that children who are legally exempt may be excluded from school.

This is not public health.
This is fear manufacturing — and the media is actively participating.

The Map Told the Truth. The Narrative Didn’t.

Over the weekend, Wendy Suares of Fox 25 Oklahoma City highlighted the Oklahoma City Public Schools measles letter as an update.

On screen, viewers were shown the CDC measles map clearly placing Oklahoma in the lowest category — 1–9 cases nationwide.

That should have been the end of the story.

Instead, the broadcast pivoted immediately to:

• “Measles surging nationwide”

• A scrolling “Measles Update” banner

• Claims that measles is “coming back with a vengeance”

• National figures — 800+ cases across the U.S.

The visual evidence said minimal risk.
The language said panic.

That contradiction is not accidental.

“Coming Back with a Vengeance”? Do the Math.

The United States has approximately 342 million people.

Even using the inflated national framing, 800 cases nationwide does not justify emergency language — especially when Oklahoma has one confirmed case, zero hospitalizations, and zero deaths.

Yet viewers were encouraged to feel urgency, fear, and social pressure — while a CDC map on screen directly contradicted the tone being used.

This is not journalism.
It is narrative manipulation.

From Reporting to Advocacy — on Facebook

The fear campaign didn’t stop with the broadcast.

On Facebook, Suares stated:

“Measles is preventable with vaccines.”

That statement is not neutral reporting.
It is editorial advocacy, and it is misleading.

Vaccines do not guarantee prevention. Breakthrough cases exist. Vaccine-induced measles is acknowledged in official documentation. Immunity is not synonymous with paperwork.

None of that nuance was offered.

Instead, parents were handed a slogan — one that dismisses informed consent and implies moral failure for anyone who asks questions or follows a lawful exemption.

That is gaslighting.

“Unvaccinated” — The Most Abused Word in the Story

The media repeatedly leans on the word unvaccinated as a scare label.

But even the Oklahoma State Department of Health explicitly states:

“The unvaccinated/unknown category includes people with no documented doses of measles vaccine more than 14 days before exposure.”

That category includes people who:

• Were vaccinated as children but lack documentation

• Have never been offered titers testing

• May already have immunity

Yet the public is never told this.

“Unvaccinated” is being used as a character judgment, not a medical classification.

Oklahoma’s Own Data Undermines the Panic

Oklahoma’s measles case summary for 2026 shows:

• 1 confirmed case

• 0 hospitalizations

• 0 deaths

• No outbreak

• No evidence of community spread

Still, parents were warned their children may be forced out of school for 21 days — a number repeated without explanation, context, or individualized assessment.

No plan for education.
No due process.
No accommodation.

Just exclusion.

Follow the Law — Still Get Punished

Oklahoma law explicitly allows vaccine exemptions.

Yet Oklahoma City Public Schools warned parents that exercising those rights may still result in their children being barred from school.

That is not public health.
That is coercion.

A right that triggers punishment is not a right at all.

Public Policy Is Being Used to Override Constitutional Rights

Public policy does not supersede:

• Parental rights

• Equal protection

• Compulsory education guarantees

But media framing makes it feel as though it does — by normalizing exclusion, shaming lawful behavior, and never questioning whether the response is proportionate or lawful.

What the Media Refuses to Discuss

Absent from every broadcast and post:

• Vaccine package inserts

• Safety testing limitations

• Informed consent disclosures

• The difference between immunity and documentation

Parents are told to comply — not to understand.

This Isn’t About Measles. It’s About Control.

This is about conditioning the public to accept:

• Fear over facts

• Exclusion over accommodation

• Compliance over consent

When one confirmed case becomes justification for intimidation — and reporters cross from informing into advocating — the problem is no longer disease.

It’s power.

This is only Part 1.

Coming in Part 2: Panic is not an accident; it is the mechanism. We expose how fear sustains funding, authority, and compliance—and why informed, unafraid parents threaten the entire system.

Many Oklahoma voters are asking a question that would have seemed unthinkable a decade ago:

Do some lawmakers who claim to be Republicans even understand what it means to be a Republican?
And more importantly — have they actually read the Oklahoma GOP Platform?

This is not a debate about tone, messaging, or personalities. It is a question of documented voting records measured directly against the stated principles of the Oklahoma Republican Party.

The Oklahoma GOP Platform Is Not Vague

The Oklahoma Republican Party Platform clearly defines what Republican voters in this state believe. It was written by grassroots Republicans — not consultants, not lobbyists, and not leadership insiders.

At its core, the platform affirms:

• Limited government

• Individual liberty and natural rights

• Parental authority over children

• Private property rights

• Local control

• Fiscal restraint

• Opposition to federal overreach, centralized data systems, DEI, CRT, SEL, and the administrative state

The OKGOP rules are explicit: Republican voters define what it means to be a Republican, not elected officials after the fact. The platform is the measuring stick — not a suggestion.

Voting Records Tell a Very Different Story

The OKGrassroots Republican Platform Scorecard reviewed 521 bills and evaluated how each vote aligned with the Oklahoma GOP Platform.

The results were eye-opening:

• A significant number of Republican legislators scored below 50% alignment with Republican platform principles.

• Many fell into the 30–40% range, meaning they voted against Republican principles more often than they voted for them.

• In practice, these lawmakers voted in alignment with Democrat priorities on core structural issues of government.

This is not speculation. It is a direct comparison of votes to platform planks.

Workforce Development: A Clear Example of Big Government in Action

One of the most consistent — and overlooked — drivers of big government, centralized control, and administrative expansion in Oklahoma is workforce development legislation.

While often marketed as “economic growth” or “education reform,” workforce development initiatives typically:

• Centralize decision-making at the state or federal level

• Shift education away from parents and local communities toward labor-market planning

• Expand data collection, tracking, and sharing across agencies and third-party vendors

• Grow boards, commissions, task forces, and public-private partnerships

• Tie funding to compliance with federally aligned goals and benchmarks (Ex: data collection)

These programs rarely reduce government. They create new administrative layers, embed long-term bureaucratic infrastructure, and weaken parental and local authority — all in direct conflict with Oklahoma GOP platform principles on limited government, parental rights, and local control.

Yet time and again, lawmakers who campaign as Republicans vote in favor of workforce development frameworks while voting down legislation that would restrain government growth.

Keep this in mind, as you decide who to support for the upcoming 2026 elections.

Where the Alignment Breaks Down

Repeatedly, low-scoring “Republicans” supported legislation that:

• Expands bureaucratic authority under the banner of workforce readiness

• Centralizes education and labor policy away from parents and local districts

• Increases data-sharing systems with minimal oversight

• Grows state agencies instead of sunsetting or consolidating them

• Advances long-term administrative control rather than short-term academic or community outcomes

These votes may be popular with federal agencies, foundations, and corporate partners — but they are not Republican platform positions.

Why Does This Keep Happening?

The scorecard highlights several structural problems:

1. Leadership gatekeeping
Strong platform-aligned bills are often blocked before receiving hearings, while workforce development bills move quickly with bipartisan support.

2. Lobbyist and institutional pressure
Workforce development initiatives are heavily funded, well-coordinated, and aggressively promoted by special interests with sustained access to lawmakers.

3. No accountability for the “R” label
There is no enforcement mechanism when Republicans vote against their own platform. The party label becomes a branding exercise rather than a values commitment.

This Isn’t About Purity — It’s About Representation

The Oklahoma GOP Platform does not require perfection. Even the scorecard recognizes 60–70% alignment as strong.

What voters are questioning is something far more fundamental:

If a legislator consistently votes to expand centralized workforce systems while ignoring Republican platform principles, who are they representing?

Because under the party’s own rules, a Republican who disregards the platform is not representing Republican voters — regardless of the letter next to their name.

The Wake-Up Call for Oklahoma Republicans

Oklahoma is a deeply Republican state. Republican voters dominate registration numbers. Yet policy outcomes increasingly reflect central planning, administrative expansion, and workforce-driven governance.

That disconnect is not accidental — and it is no longer hidden.

The tools now exist for voters to check records, compare votes, and demand accountability.

The question is no longer whether voters are watching.

It’s whether elected officials are prepared to explain why they govern like Democrats while running as Republicans.

Domesticated Warrior
Truth, accountability, and the defense of the home, family, and republic.

Modern medicine excels at emergencies. It saves lives every day. This conversation is not about rejecting doctors, distrusting medicine, or refusing treatment.

It is about something far more important:

Doing what is best for the individual—not what works for the average.

When it comes to chronic conditions, behavioral challenges, metabolic dysfunction, autoimmune symptoms, and unexplained health struggles, many families are discovering that one-size-fits-all medicine often manages symptoms rather than resolving root causes.

This Is Not About Belief—It’s About Biology

Health is not a belief system.

This isn’t about whether you “believe in” a treatment, a diagnosis, or a doctor’s intentions. Most providers genuinely want to help. The issue is structural:

Medicine is often practiced according to standardized protocols designed for populations—not for unique biology.

When a child doesn’t respond, the system tends to:

• Increase dosage

• Add another medication

• Label the symptom

• Move on

That approach may suppress symptoms—but it rarely asks why those symptoms exist.

The Hamster Wheel of “Doing Everything Right”

Parents hear:

• “They’re taking the medication correctly.”

• “Labs look normal.”

• “Give it more time.”

• “That’s just how their body is.”

Yet blood sugar keeps rising.

Behavior worsens.

Sleep disappears.

Symptoms multiply.

This is not defiance.

This is not noncompliance.

This is individual biology being treated like an average.

Every Child Is Biologically Unique

No two children:

• Metabolize medications the same way

• Process food the same way

• Detox chemicals the same way

• Respond neurologically the same way

Genetics influence:

• Drug effectiveness and side effects

• Blood sugar regulation

• Neurotransmitter balance

• Inflammation and immune response

Ignoring this doesn’t make treatment safer—it makes it less precise.

Parents: Start Small—Don’t Overwhelm Yourself or Your Child

Going deeper does not mean rejecting care or making drastic changes overnight.

It means being intentional.

Step One: Remove Dyes and Preservatives

Artificial dyes and preservatives are known to affect:

• Behavior

• Attention

• Mood

• Sleep

Important for parents to understand:

• Improvements may take weeks or months

• Temporary fluctuations can occur

• Patience is essential

Healing is not instant. The nervous system needs time to recalibrate.

Step Two: Remove High Fructose Corn Syrup (After Stability)

Once your family is stable:

• Remove high fructose corn syrup

• Observe patterns over time

• Avoid stacking changes

Small, consistent steps outperform extreme changes.

Going Beyond the Bandaid: Genetics and Root-Cause Care

This is where individualized medicine matters most.

Genetic testing can help explain:

• Why a medication never worked

• Why side effects occurred

• Why symptoms began after treatment

• Why standard protocols failed

This is not about replacing doctors—it’s about equipping care teams with better information.

Providers who use genetics are not “alternative.”

They are practicing more precise medicine.

The Goal Is Not Less Medicine—It’s Better Medicine

This is not about refusing treatment.

It’s about:

• Treating the cause, not just the symptom

• Reducing trial-and-error

• Avoiding lifelong bandaids

• Improving quality of life

A bandaid has its place.

But bandaids were never meant to replace healing.

Doctors Are Learning Too

Many physicians were trained in:

• Cellular-level medicine

• Biochemistry

• Nutrition

But the system didn’t allow them to practice that way.

Today, more doctors are:

• Integrating genetics

• Collaborating with health coaches and naturopaths

• Working as teams instead of silos

Parents should not fear collaborative, individualized care—it reflects medicine evolving, not being rejected.

Parents Must Take the First Steps

Children cannot advocate for themselves.

Parents must:

• Ask questions

• Read package inserts

• Track symptom timelines

• Ask why, not just what next

This is not distrust.

This is responsibility.

Parent Action Checklist: Start Here

☐ Observe and document symptoms over time

☐ Remove artificial dyes and preservatives

☐ Allow weeks to months for changes

☐ Remove high fructose corn syrup once stable

☐ Avoid stacking multiple changes

☐ Track patterns, not isolated events

☐ Read medication package inserts yourself

☐ Ask: Is this treating a symptom or a root cause?

☐ Seek providers familiar with genetic testing

☐ Review results with a qualified professional

☐ Build an individualized plan focused on quality of life

☐ Stay informed—your child depends on it

A Note to Parents

If you’re unsure where to begin or need help finding providers who approach care at the individual level—

Send us a message.

This is not about rejecting medicine.

It is about refining it.

And it begins with parents willing to advocate.

Disclaimer

This article is for educational purposes only and is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease. It does not replace professional medical advice. Always consult with qualified healthcare providers before making changes to medical care, diet, or treatment plans. Genetic testing and individualized care should be guided by trained professionals to ensure safety and appropriateness.

UNESCO 2023 says: not so fast.

The report asks the critical question: “Can technology solve the most important challenges in education?” Its answer is clear: not necessarily — and often no.[^1]

Here’s what UNESCO actually says:

1. Technology does not reliably improve learning. Evidence is mixed, claims that technology has “transformed education” are debatable, and costs — both short and long term — are often underestimated.[^1] Chromebooks, laptops, and apps are not magic keys to academic success.

2. The most disadvantaged students benefit the least. UNESCO admits: “The most disadvantaged are typically denied the opportunity to benefit.”[^1] Digital tools often favor already-resourced students, leaving marginalized children behind and widening educational gaps. Graduation rates may rise administratively, but literacy and comprehension can fall.

   

3. Policy decisions are driven outside classrooms. Regulations and digital policies are increasingly shaped by global frameworks — not teachers, parents, or local communities.[^1] Classroom realities are being ignored while global agendas dictate what counts as “modern learning.”

4. Equity and inclusion is often justification, not evidence. Terms like “equitable,” “inclusive,” “sustainable,” and “marginalized” are repeatedly used to justify digital surveillance, behavioral monitoring, and managed access.[^1] In the U.S., this translates into DEI policies — not because of American politics, but because the underlying policy logic is identical.

5. Why phones are banned, but Chromebooks remain — and who pushed it.
   UNESCO notes that not all students have access to personal devices, and to appear “equitable,” many schools banned smartphones while keeping institution-issued Chromebooks.[^1] Legislators who pushed these bills claimed it was for academic improvement, but UNESCO evidence shows digital tools do not reliably improve learning outcomes — meaning they were not fully truthful about their reasoning. Even more, this legislation was championed by the State Chamber, which aligns closely with Agenda 2030 initiatives such as workforce development and global digital governance. What is presented as fairness and academic rigor is in reality a method of control: parents are sidelined, personal devices are prohibited, and institution-managed devices expand monitoring — all while advancing a workforce-aligned, globally coordinated agenda under the guise of equity and inclusion.

UNESCO itself sums it up:

Digital technology has mixed academic results, disproportionately benefits already-privileged students, and often excludes the most disadvantaged — yet policymakers continue expanding digital control in schools under the banner of equity and inclusion.[^1]

Parents in Oklahoma, and across America, need to recognize what’s happening: our schools are increasingly aligning with a global digital governance framework that prioritizes system control over actual learning, and parents are being shut out of critical decisions about what devices and tools their children use.

And now think about the legislators who are helping bring this into our schools, pushing Chromebooks and digital oversight while banning personal devices — all under the guise of academics and “modern learning.” They’re the same people who are asking for your vote in 2026. Ask yourself: do you want to hand over your children’s classrooms, your family’s privacy, and your community’s education policy to officials who prioritize global frameworks and digital control over actual learning and parental rights?

This election isn’t just about politics — it’s about taking back your voice, your children’s education, and your right to say yes or no to the devices and policies that shape their future.

References

[^1]: UNESCO. Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in Education — A Tool on Whose Terms? Paris: UNESCO, 2023. Sections on “Can technology solve the most important challenges in education?” and pages highlighting mixed academic results, disadvantaged students, policy drivers, and equity language. PDF link.

Do you want me to do that next?

By A Domesticated Warrior

The Oklahoma Ethics Commission’s public-facing campaign finance portal has now been offline for nearly 90 days. That is 90 days of zero transparency, zero public access, and zero accountability—during the crucial ramp-up to the 2026 election cycle.

For a state that claims to value open government and ethical oversight, this is nothing short of a scandal.

A Timeline of Excuses — Not Transparency

The public was first notified in May 2025 that a new campaign finance platform, Guardian 2.0, would go live July 1, 2025.

Instead, what followed was a six-month cascade of delays:

June 26, 2025

Email from the Ethics Commission: launch pushed to early September.

July 18, 2025

Another email: User Acceptance Testing begins—but notably, testing begins with lobbyist functions, not public access.
Lobbyists first. Public last.

August 15, 2025

New launch date announced: September 2.

August 28, 2025

Another email: testing extended due to data migration issues.
Quote: “The current Guardian system is fully operational.”
That statement proved false just weeks later.

September 18, 2025

Ethics Commission announces Guardian 2.0 will launch by October 1, and the current Guardian system will go offline the next day, September 19.
They call this a “brief transition.”

We are now approaching three months.
Nothing about this has been brief.

October 1, 2025

Deadline passes. No system.

October 3, 2025

Email assures the public the delay is due to “final technical fixes,” “data conversion,” and the desire for a “smoother experience” for both filers and the public.
Yet the public remained completely shut out.

October 10, 2025

New claim: system goes live October 28.

They add:
“While technical challenges…extended the timeline, the Commission insisted on a measured and responsible rollout to protect system integrity and public confidence.”

At this point, public confidence wasn’t just eroded—it had collapsed.

October 28, 2025

Guardian 2.0 launches…
…but only for filers, not the public.

A “phased approach,” they say.
But how long, exactly, is this “phase”?

November 17, 2025

Members of the public—including this writer—requested campaign filings for all Governor and Lt. Governor candidates.
Almost a month later, no response.

November 25, 2025

Another email, more delays:
“Filing in Guardian 2.0 is not yet available.”
“We are exploring temporary options for public access.”

Six months into this project—with years of planning before that—they are only now exploring temporary public access?

That is not transparency.
That is avoidance.

A System Designed for Accountability—Now Turned Into a Black Hole

The Oklahoma Ethics Commission exists to provide transparency, oversight, and public access to campaign spending. Yet for nearly three months, the public has been completely locked out.

Meanwhile:

• Filers gained access October 28.

• Lobbyist functions were prioritized in July.

• Public access remains unavailable.

This raises real questions:

• Why did the Commission take the old system offline before the new one was functional?

• Why were lobbyists prioritized, but not citizen oversight?

• Why is the Legislature silent while campaign finance transparency disappears during an election cycle?

• Why are simple requests for reports taking over a month?

• Who benefits from the public being blind to campaign money for 2026?

When access to political finance information goes dark—especially during elections—suspicion is not optional. It’s justified.

The Legislature’s Hands Are Not Clean Either

The Oklahoma Legislature controls the Ethics Commission’s budget. They fund the watchdog.
A Legislature that ran one of the most aggressively liberal sessions in recent memory now sits silently while its transparency arm is effectively offline.

Not one major legislative leader—not the Speaker, not the Pro Tem—has publicly raised alarm about the public being shut out of campaign finance data.

That silence is deafening.

Taxpayer Dollars, Zero Accountability

Millions of tax dollars have gone into this update.
Six months of announcements.
Emails full of soothing language.
Repeated promises of “short delays.”

Yet here we stand:
The public cannot see campaign finance reports heading into a major election cycle.

What are they hiding?
Why aren’t more elected officials demanding answers?
Why does this delay only harm the public—not the candidates, not the lobbyists, not the insiders?

CALL TO ACTION: Oklahomans Paid for This System — Demand Public Access NOW

The Ethics Commission works for you.
You paid for Guardian 2.0.
You paid for the old Guardian system.
You pay the salaries of the people withholding public information.

Make your voice heard. Let them know you expect transparency, accountability, and immediate public access to campaign finance data.

Contact the Oklahoma Ethics Commission:

📞 Phone: 405-521-3451
📧 Email: ethics@ethics.ok.gov

Tell them:

• You paid for this system with your tax dollars.

• You expect full public access immediately.

• You oppose any delays that hide campaign finance activity during an election cycle.

• You demand the reinstatement of public transparency—today.

If the Ethics Commission will not act unless the public demands it, then it’s time for Oklahomans to raise their voices.

Do not let this “90-day blackout” become the new normal.
Do not let political insiders enjoy access while the public is kept in the dark.
Do not let transparency slip quietly out the back door.

Hold them accountable. Speak up. Demand the access you already paid for.

Across Oklahoma — and across the nation — families are reporting the same disturbing pattern:
Caseworkers, nurses, and hospital officials are bypassing HIPAA and state law to access children’s medical records before a parent has signed a release, and before any court has issued an emergency order.

They’re talking to providers, pressuring staff, and discussing private medical details — all without consent, authority, or oversight.

So, the question becomes:
Is this a need for re-education, or outright collusion to remove children unnecessarily?

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN OKLAHOMA

Under Title 10A (the Oklahoma Children and Juvenile Code), DHS caseworkers have limited authority to obtain information relevant to an open investigation of child abuse or neglect.

But that authority does not override HIPAA without proper justification or a valid legal order.

HIPAA only allows release of a child’s medical records without parental consent in very specific circumstances:

• There is a court order, subpoena, or emergency custody order granting DHS temporary custody or investigatory authority;

• There is a verified imminent danger to the child, allowing providers to disclose only the minimum necessary information to prevent harm; or

• Parental rights have been limited or suspended by a judge.

If none of those apply — meaning:

• There’s no emergency custody order,

• No signed release from the parent, and

• No safety plan transferring temporary authority,

Then DHS caseworkers are not “stakeholders” under state or federal law.
They are investigators, not custodians, and cannot legally access full medical records or direct providers to share confidential information.

“IMMINENT HARM” — OR WHATEVER WORD SALAD THEY USE

When caseworkers — or complicit providers — want to get around the law, they often reach for their favorite magic words: “imminent harm.”

Sometimes it’s “immediate risk,” “medical neglect,” “safety concern,” or whatever new word salad is trending at DHS or the local hospital that week.
No matter what phrase they use, the intent is the same — to justify bypassing privacy protections before any court has authorized it.

Let’s be clear:
HIPAA doesn’t bend to buzzwords.

Claiming “imminent harm” doesn’t make it true.
Before a provider or nurse can release information without consent, there must be objective, verifiable evidence — not just an investigator’s opinion or assumption.

That means:

• The caseworker must have spoken directly with the parents to understand the child’s condition.

• They must have confirmed with a qualified medical provider — meaning any state-licensed practitioner, including an MD, DO, Naturopathic Doctor (ND), Nurse Practitioner (NP), Physician Assistant (PA), or other licensed healthcare professional — whether there’s an active treatment plan in place; and

• They must have verified a genuine, immediate threat to life or health.

Anything less is not imminent harm — it’s an excuse to violate the law.

When DHS caseworkers, nurses, or hospital officials use vague self-declared terms to pressure providers, they are claiming authority they don’t have and pulling others into potential HIPAA violations right alongside them.

This isn’t protecting children — it’s abusing the system under the false banner of safety.

WHAT CASEWORKERS (AND SOME PROVIDERS) OFTEN DO

Families across Oklahoma have reported the same troubling actions:

• Caseworkers misrepresent their authority, claiming “Title 10 lets us access records anytime.”

• Providers are pressured with statements like, “We’re investigating, you have to cooperate.”

• Medical staff release Protected Health Information (PHI) under false pretenses.

• “Informal calls” are made to discuss private case details — without a signed release, notice, or court order.

These are not minor mistakes.
They are violations of HIPAA, state law, and medical ethics — by both the caseworker and the provider who complies.

WHY THERE’S LITTLE ACCOUNTABILITY

• Qualified immunity shields individual caseworkers from most civil penalties.

• Many medical providers and nurses don’t fully understand HIPAA exceptions and wrongly assume DHS always has access.

• Complaints to OHCA, HHS OCR, or the Ombudsman often take months or years to resolve.

• Judges rarely sanction DHS unless the violations are blatant and repeated.

The result?
A system that rewards overreach and punishes families for daring to question it.

RE-EDUCATION OR COLLUSION?

So what’s really going on?
Are these violations happening because of ignorance — or is there collusion between agencies, hospitals, and medical providers to remove children unnecessarily?

Maybe it’s both. But either way, families pay the price — and the system faces no consequence.

And let’s be clear:
A qualified medical provider is anyone licensed in the State of Oklahoma to provide care — whether that’s an MD, DO, ND, NP, or PA.
No caseworker or hospital administrator has the authority to decide which licensed provider “counts” based on convenience or bias.

It’s time to stop letting word games and misuse of power endanger families.
It’s time for education, exposure, and accountability.

WHAT PARENTS AND PROVIDERS CAN DO

✅ Document everything: Date, time, who called, what was requested, and what was shared.
✅ Notify providers in writing: Make it clear that no release is authorized and that unauthorized disclosure violates HIPAA.
✅ Ask providers to require a court order or written parental release before sharing records.
✅ File a complaint with the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) if PHI was released improperly.
✅ Bring it to court: Include the incident in any motion or affidavit — judges do take notice when DHS oversteps.
✅ Ask DHS in writing what specific part of Title 10A gives them access — most can’t answer.

📣 A CALL TO ACTION📣

If this has happened to you — or if you’re a nurse, provider, or medical staff member who’s seen caseworkers pressure hospitals into releasing private medical information — we want to hear from you.

📧 Email us at domesticatedwarrior@gmail.com

Share your experience, your documentation, and your truth.
Together, we can expose the misuse of authority and demand reform that respects both families and the rule of law.

Because protecting children shouldn’t mean violating parents.

When the preacher forgets his own sermon

On October 19, 2025, State Senator Paul Rosino appeared on News9’s Your Vote Counts, to lecture Oklahomans about “false political claims” spreading through social media.

He insisted the public should *“trust the truth” and stop “spreading lies.”

The irony? Your Vote Counts isn’t a news broadcast — it’s a political opinion show, a place where elected officials polish their talking points and call it journalism.

For Rosino to scold others about “getting the facts right” while doing it on a show that isn’t even required to be factual? That’s comedy disguised as integrity.

Watch the segment:

KWTV News 9

The lecture no one asked for

From the broadcast transcript:

“Some of the stuff that was said is vile. It’s so untrue, and unfair. And when you say those kinds of things, you could be putting children in harm.”

— Sen. Paul Rosino, Your Vote Counts, Oct 19, 2025

Rosino wasn’t defending truth; he was defending the bureaucracy.

He went on to shame any elected official willing to question agencies that have repeatedly failed the people they serve.

The credibility problem

Rosino’s moral high ground is built on quicksand.

Watchdog writers and political observers have questioned his integrity — from alleged personal entanglements to potential conflicts tied to his legislative role.

“A man who demands blind trust has yet to earn it”.

While some reports remain unverified, one thing is clear: the louder he shouts about “truth,” the less believable it sounds.

The seat of power — and the silence that follows

Senator Rosino currently chairs the Senate Health & Human Services Committee,

the very body charged with overseeing the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS).

That means he isn’t some bystander on the sidelines he’s in a position to actually fix the system he’s defending.

Let’s not forget he is the elected senator for this family.

He was elected to represent them.

Instead, he’s using his platform to discredit the lawmakers demanding accountability.

“He was elected to represent them — not to ridicule those fighting for them.”

The gaslight moment

This is a man who went on television and told Oklahomans — straight to their faces

that he thinks they’re too stupid to understand what they’re witnessing in real time.

To stand there and gaslight an entire state into doubting their own eyes, their own judgment, and their own lived experience isn’t leadership.

It’s narcissism in its purest political form.

Reality Check

When politicians tell you not to believe what you see, that’s your cue to start paying attention.

Because in Oklahoma, the truth doesn’t come from the podium — it comes from the people brave enough to speak it out loud.

Across America, families are waking up to a disturbing reality: the greatest threat to parental rights isn’t coming from the political left or the right—it’s coming from a system that’s forgotten who it serves. This is not about party lines. It’s about good versus evil. It’s about truth versus deception, freedom versus control, and the government’s increasing willingness to ignore the constitutional rights of parents and children alike.

What “Medical Kidnapping” Really Means

The term medical kidnapping is used to describe situations where a child is removed from parental custody because of a disagreement over medical care. While agencies and hospitals call it “protective custody,” families call it what it feels like: kidnapping under color of law.

It often begins innocently. A parent questions a prescribed medication, requests a second opinion, or declines a procedure that doesn’t align with their child’s unique medical needs. Suddenly, someone files a report with Child Protective Services (CPS) or the Department of Human Services (DHS), claiming “medical neglect.” From there, the gears of the state begin to turn—with little transparency, almost no due process, and devastating consequences for families.

Who’s Really Involved

1. Medical Institutions and Providers – Hospitals, physicians, and social workers have the legal authority to file neglect reports, even over simple disagreements about care.

2. Child Protective Services (DHS) – These agencies investigate, often assuming guilt until parents can prove otherwise. Once DHS opens a case, they can petition a court for emergency custody—sometimes without the parent even present.

3. Courts – Judges often rely heavily on DHS reports and hospital statements, rarely hearing the parent’s full side before granting temporary custody to the state.

4. Insurance and Billing Departments – Once the state has custody, the financial control of the child’s care shifts as well. Private insurance is often replaced or overridden by state Medicaid coverage.

Follow the Money: The Insurance Shift

One of the least-discussed but most powerful elements of these cases is what happens behind the scenes—the money.

When a child is placed in state custody, their private or employer-sponsored health insurance is frequently suspended or ignored. The child is then automatically enrolled in State Medicaid. This administrative switch does more than change who pays the bills. It changes who has control.

• Medicaid becomes the payer, not the parents.

• Hospitals and agencies now answer to the state, not the family.

• The longer a child remains in care, the more services—and reimbursements—are authorized.

What started as a “temporary” custody case can easily turn into months or years of state control, with financial incentives quietly supporting the continuation of the system.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the family’s medical choices is irrelevant.

What matters is this: if the state can override a parent’s decisions, ignore a judge’s order, and silence a family in the process—no one’s rights are safe.

Not Left vs. Right — Good vs. Evil

The erosion of parental rights is not a partisan issue. It is a moral one.

When a state agency can bypass the Constitution, separate families, and manipulate medical and legal systems to maintain control, it ceases to be a government by the people—it becomes a government over the people.

Families from every political background are realizing this truth. Today, it may be a conservative family. Tomorrow, it may be a progressive one. But the common ground is this: we all have the same God-given and constitutional right to raise our children without government intrusion.

A Pattern of Deception

Oklahoma DHS, like its counterparts across the nation, has faced a long history of controversy—accusations of falsified reports, ignored court orders, coercive tactics, and “fishing expeditions” into families’ private lives. Legislative audits and lawsuits have repeatedly exposed systemic failures, but reform has been slow, and accountability rare.

When those sworn to protect children instead use their power to control families, trust is broken—and that betrayal echoes far beyond a single case.

Why It Matters

Whether you agree or disagree, this fight is about something much bigger. It’s about the rights of every parent to make medical and moral decisions for their child without fear of retaliation. It’s about the duty of our government to operate with transparency and integrity. And it’s about a system that must be confronted—not reformed from within, but rebuilt upon truth, justice, and freedom.

Final Thought

The line between protection and tyranny is razor-thin—and once crossed, it’s hard to return.

If we stay silent when one family’s rights are trampled, we give permission for it to happen to us all.

Medical kidnapping is not just a medical or legal issue—it’s a spiritual and constitutional one.

And the question every American must now ask is simple:

Which side are you on?

There’s one thing we should all be able to agree on: Parents must always have the final say—and be respected, not shut out.

Take SB 224 from last session. The authors and the private sector—namely the State Chamber—pushed this Jeb Bush–style initiative without a shred of compromise. They wouldn’t even consider a parent’s right to opt out. That refusal exposed their true intent.

Parents already face pushback in schools. Schools have become prison-like under the guise of “safety and security.” But really, it’s about blocking parents from seeing what’s taught—or not taught—to their children. Graduation rates are paraded as a success story while proficiency rates hit rock bottom. Our “return on investment” is the worst it’s ever been.

Common sense measures to remove predators from classrooms? Those seem to matter less than protecting the school’s reputation. When students raise concerns, they’re vilified—unless they’re seeking mental health help. Then they’re celebrated.

And the endless lockdowns, drills, and safety theater? They’re driving the explosion of anxiety in children. But the schools already have the “solution”: a mental health counselor in every hallway.

Most school counselors belong to ASCA—a national organization that still pushes DEI. Districts approve travel tied to DEI initiatives, then pretend it won’t show up in classrooms. This isn’t just dishonest; it’s fiscally irresponsible. Taxpayers are footing the bill while officials treat us like we’re too ignorant to notice.

Yet no one is holding them accountable—certainly not our elected officials. They’ve shown us they work for the system, not the people. Watch what happens when someone in office actually tries to fight for the people: they’re vilified by the SWAMP.

Actions always speak louder than words.

Governor Stitt asks why the grassroots isn’t his fan club. Maybe it’s because he doesn’t have time to listen to parents’ grievances. His actions show his allegiance to the system—not to parents, not to protecting children.

These are just a few examples of the swamp creatures—people who claim to care about kids while selling them out to the State Chamber, Jeb Bush–style policies, and the agenda coming for your children.

So, parents, here’s the question: What are you going to do about it?

Step up. Push back. Or let them push you out.

When a legislator shrugs and says, “That’s just the way it is,” while voting against the people—remember that. When campaign finance transparency returns, follow the money. Did they take funds from leadership, the State Chamber, or its allies? Nothing comes for free. There’s always a price.

The SWAMP is in your face.
WAKE UP, PARENTS.
Don’t forget any of this in 2026.

Eliminating the election of the State Superintendent centralizes control of our schools, placing key decisions in the hands of appointed officials rather than the voters themselves. This shift significantly reduces the ability of parents to influence education policy or protect their children’s interests.

At the same time, Stitt has prioritized workforce development programs in schools. These initiatives are framed as preparing students for future careers, but they often serve as tools for tracking student performance, career aptitudes, and demographic data. Information collected through these programs is frequently shared with state agencies, businesses, and workforce boards—sometimes without parental consent.

By pairing the removal of an elected superintendent with workforce development mandates, the state can implement programs that prioritize labor market metrics over individual student needs. Parents no longer have a direct say in the leaders who control curriculum, career programs, or sensitive data collection. In effect, students become pipelines for data, and parental rights are sidelined.

This is more than an administrative change—it is a shift in the philosophy of education. Oklahoma’s children are being treated as resources for workforce planning rather than individuals whose parents should have primary oversight of their education. By concentrating authority and embedding workforce-focused programs, the state is dismissing parental input, compromising transparency, and monetizing student data under the guise of education reform.

Parents, advocates, and concerned citizens must recognize the connection: removing the vote for superintendent enables workforce development programs that erode parental rights and compromise student privacy. The time to raise awareness and demand accountability is now—before Oklahoma’s children are treated as data points instead of the individuals they are.

UPDATE: Guardian 2.0 Launch? Still No Transparency

It’s now October 2, 2025 — and Oklahoma is still without access to the state’s campaign finance system. The old Guardian portal was shut down mid-September, with the promise that Guardian 2.0 would launch on October 1. Instead, we are sitting at nearly two weeks of blackout, leaving the public and watchdog groups completely cut off from campaign finance records.

This means no way to track money flowing into political campaigns, no way to verify compliance, and no public oversight — all in the critical months before the 2026 election cycle ramps up.

For a system designed to ensure transparency and accountability, the silence speaks volumes.

🔎 The Promise vs. The Reality

The Oklahoma Ethics Commission announced that its Guardian campaign finance system would remain open during the transition to Guardian 2.0, launching October 1.

That assurance gave the public confidence that accountability would continue without interruption. After all, the Guardian is the only place citizens can track candidate filings, PAC money, and lobbyist activity.

But now? The Commission’s website bluntly states that the Guardian has been shut down until October 1.

🗣️ “Accountability delayed is accountability denied.”

Why This Matters

This isn’t just a technical upgrade. It’s almost a two-week blackout that undermines transparency at the exact moment Oklahomans need it most.

• Public in the Dark: No access to donations, expenditures, or lobbyist filings.

• Bad Timing: This falls during election season when money is moving fastest.

• Broken Trust: Citizens were promised continuous access. That promise is gone.

❓ The Big Questions

This shutdown raises issues far bigger than a website migration:

• Are filings still being timestamped and archived properly?

• Is the blackout in line with the Oklahoma Open Records Act?

• And most importantly: Who benefits from locking the public out during this blackout?

By pulling the plug on the Guardian, the Ethics Commission has created a “dark period” where political money moves unchecked.

Whether by design or neglect, the effect is the same: Oklahomans are being kept in the dark about who is influencing their government.

Transparency isn’t optional. It’s the foundation of trust in government. The Ethics Commission’s decision to shut down public access during this transition betrays that trust.

If watchdogs, journalists, and citizens can’t track political money in real time, then corruption has room to breathe.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant — and right now, the lights are off.

🔥 Call-to-Action:
Share this article. Demand answers. Contact the Oklahoma Ethics Commission and your legislators. Tell them Oklahomans will not accept a transparency blackout.

Public records, reporting, and tax filings reveal substantial money and institutional endorsements—including ties to conservative “dark-money” networks and establishment figures connected to international policy circles.

Raises questions about whether these endorsements serve grassroots or subtly advance top-down, globalist policies.

First, here’s a structured breakdown of the staff and board leadership for Convention of States Foundation (COSF) and Convention of States Action (COSA:

Staff

• Michael Ruthenberg

  • Chief Operating Officer of both COSF and COSA

  • Private real estate investor

• Patricia Meckler

  • Vice President of External Relations for both COSF and COSA

  • Wife of Mark Meckler- President of COSF; President & CEO of COSA, connecting family ties directly into leadership

• Robert Kelly

  • Chief Financial Officer & General Counsel for COSF

  • General Counsel for COSA

Board of Directors

• Eric O’Keefe – Chair of COSF Board; also on COSA Board

  • Co-founder, Campaign for Primary Accountability PAC

  • Current board memberships include:

    • Wisconsin Alliance For Reform

    • Wisconsin Club for Growth

• Mark Meckler – President of COSF; President & CEO of COSA

  • Co-founder & former national coordinator, Tea Party Patriots

  • Founder, Citizens for Self-Governance

• Tim Dunn – Board Member of COSF and COSA

  • CEO, CrownQuest Operating

  • Former executive, Parker and Parsley Petroleum

  • Former engineer, Exxon Production Research Company

  • Leadership & affiliations:

    • Vice Chair, Texas Public Policy Foundation (major conservative policy think tank)

    • Chair, America First Works & Empower Texans

    • Board member: Transparency Texas, Lucy Burns Institute, First Liberty Institute, 1789 Alliance, CSG Action, COSA, Health Care Compact

  ---

COS Public Pitch and Why It Matters

COS promotes a narrow goal: use of Article V to propose amendments that limit federal power, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.

Digging deeper reveals layers of influence and while COS looks like citizen empowerment, the financial trail shows the people actually guiding the ship—and it isn’t “We the People”.

The Money Trail and Dark-Money Networks

• Running the “Convention of States initiative” is an Austin, Texas-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit called Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG). CSG reported revenue of $5.7 million in 2015, more than double its haul from two years earlier, when it launched its Convention of States Project, according to The Dallas News. Tax records by the Center for Media and Democracy, Conservative Transparency show a web of Koch-linked groups having provided nearly $5.4 million to CSG from the group’s founding in 2011 through 2015:

  • Donors Trust, a preferred secret money conduit for individuals and foundations in the Koch network of funders, has given CSG at least $790,000 since 2011.

  • The Greater Houston Community Foundation, which is funded by Donors Capital Fund (linked to Donors Trust) and the Kochs’ Knowledge and Progress Fund, has donated over $2 million since 2011.

  • The Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program, which has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Donors Capital Fund, gave $2.5 million from 2012-13.

  Citizens for Self-Governance also has a Koch-connected board members. Eric O’Keefe is a director of the Wisconsin Club for Growth and Chair of COSF Board; also on COSA Board.

  Leonard Leo, Mercer, and Influence Networks

  • Leonard Leo: Central operator in conservative nonprofit and donor networks, moving large sums to judicial and policy projects CREW that supports DEI and Racial justice.

  • Robert Mercer: Historically funded major conservative initiatives, linked to Article V activism networks. The Mercer family uses "dark money" funds to obscure the ultimate destination of their contributions, making it difficult to fully track their current activity.

  • American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in pushing for an Article V convention. Arguably the country’s largest and most powerful state-based lobbying organization- funders include Koch Industries, Pfizer, UPS and others

The State Policy Network, a frequent ALEC partner, links conservative and libertarian “think tanks” in all 50 states and is funded by corporations including AT&T, Kraft Foods, and Philip Morris, as well as conservative donors such as Koch Industries and the Walton Family Foundation

NOTE: ALEC and State Policy Network are funded by Koch Industries

• DonorsTrust $100,000 (2021) to Convention of States Foundation. DonorsTrust is known as a “giving vehicle” used by wealthy conservative donors to fund causes with lower visibility (“dark money” style).

• National Christian Charitable Foundation ~$287,035 (2022) Ties into religious / Christian conservative donor networks including left leaning groups.

“Dark money” sources (networks) Over $58 million (2016-2021) through three nonprofits tied to COS, from “dark money” networks including those tied to the Koch family (Americans for Prosperity) and Leonard Leo. Mercer is known for funding conservative causes (including think-tanks, media, political campaigns).

These networks centralize control over agendas and outcomes.

Large, strategic funding can steer what appears to be grassroots activity. Don’t allow yourself to be fooled.

Institutional Cover: Think Tanks and Endorsements
COS has received credibility through support from established conservative institutions. The Heritage Foundation, Texas Public Policy Foundation and other policy organizations have provided memos and analyses legitimizing Article V conventions.

Endorsements from high-profile conservative figures and institutions help COS move from marginal activism to establishment acceptance.

The Bush Connection
COS article on Jeb Bush as a supporter. The Bush family has historical ties to global policy institutions (CFR, trade networks, etc.).

• Samuel P. Bush: patriarch of the family, Samuel P. Bush was a co-founder of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1912

• Jeb Bush's policy positions often echo those promoted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, particularly on issues such as education and immigration

  • The chamber supports the top-down racket

• Jeb Bush & the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

  • Jeb Bush has long been aligned with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, both directly and indirectly.

  • The Chamber has consistently promoted pro-big business, pro-immigration, pro-free trade, and ESG-aligned agendas, often at odds with grassroots, America-first positions.

• Globalist Alignment

  • The U.S. Chamber is deeply tied to World Economic Forum-style policies—pushing open markets, corporate ESG frameworks, and more.

  • Bush family interests overlap strongly with these priorities, reinforcing the idea that Jeb’s connections to the Chamber are part of the Bush legacy of globalist policymaking.

👉 So when Jeb Bush surfaces in networks like Convention of States supporters, the Chamber tie adds another layer: it’s not just establishment Republicanism—it’s integration with the biggest globalist corporate lobby in the U.S..

If globalist-aligned figures, donors, and institutions are all pushing COS, then supporting COS risks handing those same actors a mechanism to rewrite the U.S. Constitution.

Network Map
COS sits at the center, linked to leadership (Meckler, Farris), think tanks (Heritage, TPPF), donor vehicles (DonorsTrust, family foundations), and network actors (Leonard Leo, Robert Mercer). Jeb Bush and Bush-family networks connect to global policy and institutional nodes.

Checklist and Warnings for Patriots

Follow the Money

• ❌ Identify COS-aligned PACs, grants, or foundation funding in your area.

• ❌ Track contributions from out-of-state or corporate donors to legislators.

• ❌ Watch for public-private partnerships advancing COS priorities.

• ❌ Document and expose conflicts of interest.

⚠️ Red Flag Warning Signs

• Language emphasizing national “solutions” or uniform amendments.

• Push for federal power expansion under the guise of “state-led reform.”

• Efforts that circumvent voters or local councils.

• Secretive funding or behind-the-scenes lobbying.

Opposition to Article V Convention

• State Rep. Mike Ritze (R) said, “We are venturing on grounds that are uncertain; there are many who believe this would be a runaway convention.”

• In 2015, Arizona Senate President Andy Biggs authored The Con of the Con Con: The Case Against the States Amending the U.S. Constitution. In the book, he argues that an Article V convention is not as simple and safe as supporters claim.

• “It’s like playing Russian roulette. We kind of think it would work out well. You put a bullet in one chamber, the odds of it working are pretty good. But the consequences of being wrong are immeasurable,” said Virginia Sen. Richard H. Black (R)

• The Republican National Committee adopted a resolution in 2012 declaring that it “strongly opposes” the convening of a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States for the reason that the risk of loss far exceeds the possibility of gain from such an uncontrolled and uncontrollable proceeding.”

• Texas State Republican Executive Committee passed similar resolutions as the RNC, which calls for rescinding “any and all existing calls for a Convention.” The Constitution Party National Committee is also opposed to calling a convention.

The Deception Behind the Convention of States

Behind the grassroots rhetoric lies a network of donors and organizations who claim to support limited government yet simultaneously fund both left-leaning and right-leaning initiatives. These backers have a track record of promoting globalist policies that fit their top-down agenda, and their influence risks turning a constitutional reform into a vehicle for centralized control rather than a return of power to the people.

Supporting COS without understanding the networks behind it may inadvertently empower the very forces that threaten the freedoms it claims to protect.

Americans must ask themselves: is this truly about the people, or is it about a globalist vision masquerading as patriotism?

Red Flags: Chamber Influence & Corporate Agendas

Be cautious if your candidate:

• Boasts Chamber awards—often a signal they serve corporate interests, not voters.

• Receives campaign contributions from the State Chamber or affiliated companies.

• Sits on workforce committees with ties to state-driven programs.

• Co-authored or supported bills like SB 224, which eliminated parental choice in workforce pipelines.

Takeaway: System-driven workforce development aligns with Agenda 2030 and SDGs, prioritizing state and corporate control over families and local businesses.

Market-Friendly Illusions

The Chamber packages centralized control as “free market choice,” but the reality is:

• Public–private partnerships (PPPs): Mostly funnel government dollars to a few large corporations—small businesses rarely benefit.

• Credentialing pipelines: Kids tracked early into “career pathways” tied to state or federal funding.

• Incentive programs: Businesses pressured via subsidies or tax breaks to participate in state-approved programs.

• “Employer choice” academies: Students appear to have options, but pipelines are dictated by state partners—not parents.

• Regional/State workforce boards: Marketed as “local control,” but aligned with federal mandates.

Bottom line: It creates the illusion of choice, while steering families and small businesses toward a centralized outcome.

Who Should Be in the Driver’s Seat?

Workforce development is essential—but who controls it matters:

• Parents and local communities ✅

• State-corporate-globalist systems ❌

Candidates who prioritize parental rights, local businesses, and privacy support freedom-friendly workforce development. Those who side with the Chamber prioritize centralized control.

Candidate Litmus-Test Questions

Use these questions when candidates visit your area. They’re designed so a true conservative will answer clearly, while a Chamber-aligned RINO may stumble:

Important:

• Compare answers to voting history. If a candidate references a specific bill, make sure it matches their record—too often, their words do not align with their votes.

• Do not take answers at face value. The public must stop assuming a candidate is telling the truth without verification.

• Document everything. If you don’t have time to track responses personally, send the information to us, include both the candidate’s answers and any bill references and send to domesticatedwarrior@gmail.com.

Key: A true grassroots Republican will side with parents, privacy, small businesses, and limited government. A RINO will dodge, double-speak, or defend “partnerships” and “career pathways.”

📋 Short & Sweet Scorecard

• Split the questions among your group when candidates visit.

• Ask the questions, score based on their answers, and record the results.

• Here is a link for the scorecard

• Send a screenshot to domesticatedwarrior@gmail.com to help us educate the public.

This empowers Okies to make informed decisions, not choices based on popularity or campaign money.

The days of “that’s the way we’ve always done it” or “following along to get along” are over. Oklahomans are more engaged than ever. Corruption unfolds daily—but you can be part of the solution, not the status quo.

Yet, DEI is still alive and well in Oklahoma schools—just hidden under new names.

OSCA’s Public Mission Confirms the Agenda

The Oklahoma School Counselors Association (OSCA), the state chapter of the American School Counselors Association (ASCA), makes no attempt to hide its ideological agenda.

The problem? Student outcome data doesn’t back this up. Test scores are stagnant or falling, proficiency rates are low, and Oklahoma ranks near the bottom in national academic achievement. OSCA’s focus is clearly on equity, data, and systemic change — not academics.

By its own mission, OSCA is advancing DEI under the banner of counseling. This alone should raise alarms: Why is OSCA still being allowed inside Oklahoma schools, when its stated purpose openly violates state mandates and federal executive orders?

Exposed in Training: DEI Alive and Well in 2025

On March 25, 2025, OSCA’s current president Chelsea Hinkle led a training specifically for counselors. Far from eliminating DEI, the training openly promoted it.

📌 Excerpts from the Training:

• “…committed to providing equity within our school community…”

• “The Sweet Spot” (College Board Toolkit) — directing counselors and principals to:

  • Identify inequitable practices within the school

  • Create systemic change within the school

  • Promote equity through mission and vision statements

  • Key in on every student’s “needs and emotional security”

📸 Screenshots from the training confirm OSCA’s DEI directives. Full slide deck available here.

A National Agenda Filtered Into Oklahoma

Back in 2022, Courage Is a Habit exposed what ASCA was really teaching at its national conference:

• How to work around parental rights

• Using pronouns and gender identity policies to stonewall parents

• Strategies for keeping secrets from parents about a child’s gender transition

• Training on Critical Race Theory (CRT) principles

• Promoting the idea that school counselors are “master manipulators”

• How to use MTSS (Multi-Tiered Systems of Support) to “dismantle white people”

This is not unique to ASCA nationally—OSCA has adopted these same values and practices locally. Check out this link for excerpts.

MTSS: A Trojan Horse for Equity

MTSS, a behavioral and academic support framework used across Oklahoma, is marketed as a neutral tool for student success. But a document from the U.S. Department of Education reveals its real purpose: advancing equity agendas through SEL (Social Emotional Learning) and mental health programs.

📌 From DOE Guidance:

“Multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) can be used to advance social and emotional learning (SEL) and mental health in schools. However, to implement the MTSS framework effectively, it is essential to center your efforts on equity.”

This isn’t academic improvement—it’s equity-driven social engineering.

Oklahoma’s Outdated Laws That Protect DEI

Despite recent mandates and bans, Oklahoma law still contains provisions that align with DEI goals. For example, Title 70, Section 6-129.1 established a Minority Teacher Recruitment Advisory Committee back in 1998. While recruitment may sound harmless, this committee is yet another example of DEI baked into statute—showing why Title 70 needs a full overhaul.

The Bottom Line

Oklahoma leaders may pass laws and issue mandates against DEI, but schools are simply changing the language to continue the same agenda. Whether it’s called SEL, PBIS, MTSS, “culturally responsive teaching,” or equity, the reality is the same: DEI is still being implemented in Oklahoma schools, just under different labels.

The March 25, 2025 OSCA training, combined with OSCA’s own mission statement, proves it: school counselors are being instructed to use their positions to advance DEI agendas, despite laws and executive orders banning it.

Parents and taxpayers are being misled. Instead of complying with state and federal direction, education bureaucrats are hiding behind new acronyms and frameworks designed to look harmless while pushing the same ideological agenda.

Until Oklahoma addresses these issues at both the policy and enforcement level, DEI will remain entrenched in our schools—no matter what the laws say.

Additional Resources: MTSS, SEL, and Equity

For those seeking to substantiate how MTSS, SEL, and equity are interwoven—often under the guise of student welfare—here are authoritative sources:

MTSS & Equity Bringing an Equity Lens to Student Well-Being through the MTSS Framework – A fact sheet guiding schools to center equity in MTSS-based SEL and mental health planning from the Institute of Education Sciences

Strengthening MTSS for Behavior (MTSS-B) to Promote Racial Equity – A peer-reviewed paper arguing for racial equity through MTSS-B, urging systemic transformation in discipline practices (ERIC).

CASEL (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning) Equity-centered SEL resources:– How Does SEL Support Educational Equity and Excellence? – Explores how SEL fosters fair access to academic and emotional growth (CASEL).

Equity and SEL – Frames SEL as a lever for inclusive, equitable school environments (Casel Schoolguide).– Transformative SEL – Conceptualizes SEL as a tool for addressing race and identity in education (CASEL).

ASCA (American School Counselor Association) Equity-focused materials:– The School Counselor and Equity for All Students – A position statement outlining counselors’ role in uncovering disparities and enabling inclusive practices (schoolcounselor.org).

College Board Toolkit Enhancing the Principal–School Counselor Relationship: A Toolkit – Encourages equity-based collaboration between leadership and counselors to support all students (College Board Counselors).

Supplemental Resources on MTSS & Equity – Edutopia: A Multi-Tiered Approach to Promoting SEL – Highlights how to embed equity in MTSS through inclusive data use and intervention selection (Edutopia).