If you listen to the radio show you know that I have concerns about where the police reform movement will ultimately take us. It is highly likely, in my opinion, that many of these people defunding the police and calling for a complete overhaul of the current system of public safety want a national police force. The move by the capitol police to open field offices might be the next step and indicate which entity will take control or the lead in this movement.

If you would like to see a little preview of what a national police force would look like, especially at the control of a federal body heavily influenced by politics, just take a look in Michigan. Attorney general Dana Nessel announced last week that the Michigan State Police will be investigating those who are making claims about the integrity of the Michigan election process. The attorney general said that a Republican led Senate committee issued a report saying, that while they did find areas of concern, they did not find systemic fraud in the election process. That is significant in the way they phrased it, since a federal judge found that the Michigan Secretary of State overstepped the bounds of authority in dealing with absentee ballots. There may not have been systemic fraud but the evidence is that there were votes counted, potentially enough to reverse the election results, that should not have been counted

This Senate oversight committee has consulted with the state attorney general asking them to investigate those people who continue to make "false or misleading claims" about the integrity of the election process. Especially if they are profiting in some way off of those claims. Former state senator Patrick Colbeck and attorney Matthew Deperno are among those that will be investigated by the state police. Both have been seeking donations to help cover legal costs after Dominion threatened to sue each of them over their claims that the voting machines were rigged.

Further, Colbeck operates a website which is his primary source of income. It is where much of the information he has uncovered is presented. He also uses the website to raise money and charges a fee for access. According to statements he has released, he is either charged or raised about $30,000 over the last eight months, about half of which pays the expenses. The rest has been used for his personal expenses much like the rest of us do with our salary. I understand that the amount of money someone might make is irrelevant when it comes to the charges that the state attorney general is levying.

If you support what the Michigan attorney general is doing, it's only because you support their position on the election. The simple fact is this; another party could someday be in charge in Michigan and use the police powers to silence opposition as well. Now we know that doesn't often happen in tyrannical forms of government where the party in power controls not only information but uses the threat of legal action against their opponents to keep them silent. But it does happen in places, such as Eastern Europe or maybe even what we are seeing in Cuba today.

The problem lies in the definition of fraud. Even the Senate oversight committee said there were significant concerns about the electoral process. The federal judge ruled against the Michigan Secretary of State and their overstep of authority. We are seeing in Arizona that the election results could flip by as many as 750,000 votes. but were the claims made by people like Colbeck and Deperno fraudulent? If there is enough evidence to raise the question legally resulting in both a Senate investigation and a federal lawsuit, the answer should be no. The attorney general is building its case on a very narrow interpretation and reading of the Senate committee report. We all know that legal cases and political investigations do not always uncover the truth, leaving many questions to still be answered. My argument is that fraud only exists when it is clear there is no evidence of wrongdoing and you still make the claims.

Some people may argue that free speech rights allow you to say whatever you want. While you are allowed to say whatever you'd like, you are not free of the consequences. Especially if you knowingly make false statements in order to achieve some benefit to yourself. The prospect of having a state or federal agency use the police force to investigate you for making claims that a reasonable person would say are legitimate or at least should be asked and answered is scary. We are one step closer to a police state, which is of course, a characteristic of a socialist form of government. They cannot get you to go along voluntarily so they use coercion and force to achieve compliance. If you think I'm wrong, change my mind.