Connect with us

Politics

Commentary: How do you stand up to lies and brutality? Maybe you blow a whistle, for starters

Published

on

Commentary: How do you stand up to lies and brutality? Maybe you blow a whistle, for starters

Frank Clem, a pickleball pal of mine, recently put out the word that he was collecting whistles to deliver to the front lines of anti-ICE demonstrations in downtown Los Angeles, Highland Park, Pasadena and other locations.

I was out of the country at the time, but shortly after I returned, I thought about Clem when Minneapolis nurse Alex Pretti was shot dead by ICE agents at a protest in Minnesota. It wasn’t long before the Trump administration’s top officials took turns blaming the victim, lying about the circumstances and calling Pretti an assassin.

Pretti’s distraught parents responded with this:

“The sickening lies told about our son by the administration are reprehensible and disgusting.”

And yet entirely unsurprising, given the state of disinformation and the blatant corruption of legal and moral codes of conduct under Trump, who just the other day was blowing gas yet again about the 2020 election being stolen.

Advertisement

How do you stand up to a president who hypocritically pardons drug kingpins and other rabble, including the barbarians who beat up cops and ransacked the Capitol, even as he invades cities to terrorize and abduct working people?

Maybe you blow a whistle, for starters.

I know, it’s a small gesture. But Clem and others are choosing sides, standing up for their communities, and refusing to remain silent as it becomes clear that the ICE agenda is less about law and order and more about the politics of scapegoating.

I came upon a story on Fox11 about a broader whistle brigade in Los Angeles. Musician Hector Flores, of Las Cafeteras, said he had been distributing free whistles to coffee shops because “we’ve got to protect one another,” and a whistle can sound the alarm that ICE agents are on the prowl.

If Trump were honest about rounding up violent criminals, we wouldn’t need this kind of resistance. But arrests of immigrants with no criminal records are increasing, and the majority of them are here to work and support their families. And U.S. employers have embraced and relied on them as essential contributors to the economy.

Advertisement

When I couldn’t immediately get hold of Flores, I called the owner of Cafe de Leche, the Highland Park coffee shop he had delivered whistles to. Matt Schodorf told me he was fresh out of whistles, and I thought of Clem, who agreed to meet me at Cafe de Leche with a special delivery.

Clem, an actor, is someone you want on your pickleball team because he comes to play and he covers a lot of ground. You might have seen him in theater productions, on TV shows or in movies, and you couldn’t possibly not have seen him as the emu farmer in a Liberty Mutual commercial.

Clem walked past a window sign that says “I Like My Coffee Without ICE” and took a seat at Cafe de Leche. He was wearing an L.A. ballcap and carrying a shopping bag containing hundreds of whistles.

A sign reading “I like my coffee without ICE” is posted in the window of Cafe de Leche in Highland Park. Cafe owners Matt and Anya Schodorf have been giving away whistles to customers to be used for ICE sightings and at demonstrations.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Black whistles. Red whistles. Whistles with strings and whistles with hooks to clip onto key chains.

Enough for a symphony.

“It’s 18, 20 bucks for, like, a hundred whistles,” Clem said, displaying a sandwich-size baggie of 100 multicolored whistles in the shape of small pencils.

Clem has been buying them in bulk on the internet, accepting donated whistles from friends, and making his with a 3D printer. He said he had already given away more than 1,500 the last few weeks at rallies and demonstrations.

Advertisement

People smile, Clem said, “when they see the possibilities,” when they join the chorus and the cause, and rather than retreat in silence, make themselves heard. Stiff opposition to ICE atrocities in Minneapolis has led to the withdrawal of hundreds of agents, so maybe a corner is being turned.

“We’re blowing $20 on coffee, right?” Clem said. “But here’s $20 you can spend on something and really feel like you’re getting some kind of return on it. … Throw me 100 whistles, and we’ll get them into the hands of people that might make a difference.”

Schodorf joined us with a cleaned-out whistle rack that said “Free Ice Alarms” on it, and said he’d be glad to fill the rack with Clem’s contributions. Before long, it was loaded up with 100 whistles and placed on the front counter.

When I asked Schodorf about joining ranks with the whistle brigade, he mentioned his wife, Cafe de Leche co-owner Anya Schodorf.

“She grew up here, but she was born in Nicaragua,” he said, and it’s hard to not to get involved when “they’re just profiling people right off the streets. I mean, nobody feels safe … and they’re charging the brown people, right? My wife would identify as that, and she’s afraid to go out of the house.”

Advertisement

Schodorf said they’ve been scrambling to keep the business running after they lost their Cafe de Leche restaurant in the fire that tore through Altadena a year ago. A photo of them in the ruins of their other shop hung on the wall, along with other photos of the destruction in Altadena.

“I don’t know what to do,” Schodorf said about the ICE tactics in Highland Park and beyond, “but I feel like we want to raise the voices of people.”

His wife entered the shop and greeted friends and customers before joining us. She has been a U.S. citizen for decades, and yet she feels as though the color of her skin makes her a suspect.

Anya and Matt Schodorf, owners of Cafe de Leche in Highland Park, talk about their fears about ICE in the community.

Anya and Matt Schodorf, owners of Cafe de Leche in Highland Park, talk about their fears about ICE in the community.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

“You can scream from the top of your lungs that you’re a citizen, and they don’t care,” Anya said. “I honestly can’t think straight … and it’s really hard for me to concentrate.”

Anya said she walks and sometimes runs on Arroyo trails but has begun taking extra precautions, like calling her husband and leaving the line open. She went to a park in Pasadena recently and got worried after entering a restroom.

“I heard … a commotion outside and I got nervous,” Anya said. “And then I came out and saw ICE people kind of harassing the workers, like city workers. They’re city landscapers, and I panicked. I went back into the bathroom, like, what do I do? And why should I be panicky? I’m a citizen.”

Her kids are just as concerned about her as she is.

“It’s my son I really worry about,” Anya said. “He says, ‘Make sure you have your passport.’ Yeah, my kids. They’re really worried. And my son is like, please be careful. … It’s that additional stress that they don’t need — that they have to worry about me.”

Advertisement

The Schodorfs said ICE agents recently grabbed a neighborhood fixture — a guy who sells tamales.

“They’re just picking people off, right and left,” Matt said.

“He’s like 72,” Anya said.

The first whistles delivered by Hector Flores were gone before long.

“It was just a matter of hours,” Matt said. “I think it’s twofold. It’s people who think they might need it just for themselves, but it’s people who feel like they might need it for other people. … It’s been wildly popular.”

Advertisement

“We’re a good country,” Anya said. “But we’re falling into the hands of people that are cruel and they don’t really care about anyone but themselves, and they are enriching themselves.”

Clem said that at rallies, he’s making sure to offer whistles to vendors.

“People selling hot dogs and churros,” he said. “They’re asking how many they can take for their families and friends, right? I want them to take as many as they can. I’ve got 1,500 of these things sitting on my dining room table.”

Clem said he was never really a protester, but “anyone who has eyes can see” the alarming level of corruption coming out of the White House.

“My dad fought in the Battle of the Bulge, right?” Clem said. “My dad fought Nazis and fascists in World War II, and he was always warning me growing up that it could happen here. So now, the least I can do is pass out whistles.”

Advertisement

When Clem’s whistles were on display at the counter, one of the first customers was Hana McElroy. She ordered a coffee and took a whistle.

“I’m a nanny, and I pick up a couple of kids from their preschool and I know and love so many kids with parents in pretty tenuous situations,” said McElroy, who is Irish American. “It’s just been a scary time to be an Angeleno.”

Hana McElroy, right, picks up a free whistle while ordering a cup of coffee from Soleil Hernando at Cafe de Leche.

Hana McElroy, right, picks up a free whistle while ordering a cup of coffee from Soleil Hernando at Cafe de Leche.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

McElroy said she knows some of the Latina nannies who take their charges to the little park across the street from Cafe de Leche, and she worries about them too.

Advertisement

McElroy showed me a whistle on her key chain but said it was broken. Soleil Hernando, a barista, told her after she’d taken one of Clem’s whistles that they were free, and she should take as many as she wanted.

McElroy grabbed another.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Vance Says Pope Should Stay Out of U.S. Affairs

Published

on

Video: Vance Says Pope Should Stay Out of U.S. Affairs

new video loaded: Vance Says Pope Should Stay Out of U.S. Affairs

transcript

transcript

Vance Says Pope Should Stay Out of U.S. Affairs

Vice President JD Vance weighed in on the tension between President Trump and Pope Leo XIV as Catholics expressed dismay about Mr. Trump’s attacks.

“I certainly think that in some cases, it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality, to stick to matters of, you know, what’s going on in the Catholic Church and let the president of the United States stick to dictating American public policy.” “I don’t think that the message of the Gospel is meant to be abused in the way that some people are doing. And I will continue to speak out loudly against war, looking to promote peace.” “Pope Leo said things that are wrong. There’s nothing to apologize for. He’s wrong.” “I’m not a big fan of Pope Leo. He’s a very liberal person. I don’t think he’s doing a very good job.” “I did post it, and I thought it was me as a doctor, and it had to do with the Red Cross. There’s a Red Cross worker there, which we support.” “It’s terrible. It’s gross. It’s blasphemous.” “I stand with the pope. I mean, the pope speaks the Gospel. He speaks for peace.”

Advertisement
Vice President JD Vance weighed in on the tension between President Trump and Pope Leo XIV as Catholics expressed dismay about Mr. Trump’s attacks.

By Shawn Paik

April 14, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Biden DOJ weaponized FACE Act against pro-life Americans, 882-report alleges

Published

on

Biden DOJ weaponized FACE Act against pro-life Americans, 882-report alleges

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Justice Department released a report Tuesday alleging the Biden administration weaponized federal law by selectively prosecuting pro-life activists under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, following a review of more than 700,000 internal records.

DOJ officials said prosecutors coordinated with abortion-rights groups to track activists, sought harsher sentences for pro-life defendants and, in some cases, withheld evidence or tried to exclude jurors based on religion.

“This department will not tolerate a two-tiered system of justice,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. “No Department should conduct selective prosecution based on beliefs. The weaponization that happened under the Biden Administration will not happen again, as we restore integrity to our prosecutorial system.”

PRO-LIFE JOURNALIST ASSAULTED ON STREET ASSIGNS BLAME TO DEMOCRATIC RHETORIC

Advertisement

The Justice Department released a report Tuesday alleging the Biden administration weaponized federal law by selectively prosecuting pro-life activists under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, following a review of more than 700,000 internal records. Anti-abortion activists march across the National Mall near the U.S. Capitol during the 50th annual March for Life rally on Jan. 20, 2023 in Washington, DC.  (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Justice Department’s “Weaponization Working Group” — a review team created under the Trump administration to examine whether federal law was used in a biased or politically motivated way — said it reviewed internal communications, case files and prosecutorial decisions tied to enforcement of the FACE Act, a law intended to protect access to abortion clinics and pregnancy resource centers.

The report found officials under the Biden administration worked closely with groups including Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation and the Feminist Majority Foundation, which helped compile information on pro-life activists used in investigations and prosecutions.

The report said, “The Biden DOJ prosecutors knowingly withheld evidence that defense counsel requested to prepare an affirmative defense.”

In one case, a DOJ official told defense counsel, “I do not keep the kind of records you requested and, as a result, I do not believe that we will provide them to you,” when asked for data to support a selective prosecution defense. 

Advertisement

The report said the official had the information “readily available” but declined to share it with the defense.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD APOLOGIZES FOR ‘INADVERTENTLY’ GIVING SEXUALLY EXPLICIT COLORING BOOK TO CHILDREN

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department will not tolerate a “two-tiered system of justice.” (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

The report also alleged prosecutors attempted to screen out jurors based on religious beliefs and, in some cases, opted for aggressive arrest tactics rather than allowing defendants to voluntarily surrender.

For instance, the report cited a case involving pro-life activist Mark Houck in which prosecutors declined a request for him to self-surrender and instead authorized an FBI arrest at his home.

Advertisement

DOJ officials further claimed pro-life defendants faced significantly harsher sentencing requests, with prosecutors seeking an average of 26.8 months in prison compared to 12.3 months for defendants accused of violence against pro-life organizations.

The report argued the Biden administration’s enforcement of the FACE Act was uneven, with authorities prioritizing cases involving abortion clinics while failing to adequately pursue attacks on pregnancy resource centers and churches.

The Justice Department said the Trump administration has already taken steps to reverse course, including issuing pardons for some pro-life activists, dismissing several civil cases and limiting future FACE Act prosecutions to “extraordinary circumstances” involving significant aggravating factors.

President Donald Trump also signed pardons for pro-life activists convicted under the prior administration.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

Merrick Garland headed the Justice Department under the Biden administration. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Assistant Attorney General Daniel Burrows said the findings raised serious concerns about the conduct of department attorneys.

“The behavior unearthed in this report is shameful,” Burrows said in a statement. “Lawyers who should have known better withheld evidence, worked to keep committed religious people off juries and generally allowed the Department of Justice to be used as the enforcement arm of pro-abortion special interests.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: The results are in, and same-sex marriage was a win for children and society

Published

on

Contributor: The results are in, and same-sex marriage was a win for children and society

Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision, opponents raised alarms about the severe and immediate harms that would surely occur if marriages between same-sex couples were recognized nationally. Afterward, when those harms failed to materialize, those voices grew quieter, but some have been returning with renewed vigor, in hopes that the current Supreme Court, after overturning Roe vs. Wade, may be willing to overturn the Obergefell decision as well — though the justices declined to do so in November.

To build public support for rolling back marriage rights, new campaigns have been repeating the claims that legal recognition of same-sex marriages may harm children or even the stability of different-sex marriages. These are some of the same concerns that were raised in the years prior to the Obergefell decision. They were groundless then, and, more than 10 years later, the data confirm these fears to be unfounded.

In 2024, for the 20th anniversary of the first legal marriages of same-sex couples (in Massachusetts), my lab at UCLA joined with a team of researchers at Rand Corp. to review what social scientists learned over those two decades about the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage.

We addressed this question in two ways. First, we searched through the research literature to find every published study that had examined the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage. Prior to 2015, states legalized and prohibited same-sex marriage at different times, and social scientists tracked a wide range of outcomes, including the well-being of children, national trends in marriage and divorce, and the physical and mental health of same-sex couples. Opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage predicted, in the strongest terms, that people would suffer after same-sex couples were granted the right to marry.

Advertisement

After 20 years of legalized marriage for same-sex couples, 96 independent studies confirm there is no evidence for the harms critics predicted. Our review identified not a single study that observed significant negative consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage. Instead, the research literature identified many significant positive consequences.

For same-sex couples, legal recognition of their marriages was followed by more stable relationships, increased mental and physical health, greater financial stability, and stronger connections to family. For the children of those couples, our review found no documented negative outcomes, but legal recognition of their parents’ marriages did result in more children obtaining access to health insurance. And what about the rest of the country? States that recognized same-sex marriages prior to Obergefell experienced economic gains and considerable savings in healthcare costs relative to states that did not.

One of the most striking predictions of the opponents of same-sex marriage was that recognizing marriage among same-sex couples would weaken commitment to the institution of marriage among different-sex couples. That did not happen either.

To address this question, our report conducted new analyses, drawing on census data and other sources to determine whether state-level rates of marriage, cohabitation and divorce changed in the states that recognized same-sex marriage, compared with states that did not. No matter how we conducted the analyses, we could find no effects of recognizing same-sex marriage on any of these outcomes. It makes sense: When different-sex couples are making personal decisions about their own relationships, they are not paying much attention to what same-sex couples are doing.

If any harm resulted from allowing same-sex couples to marry, it ought to be well documented by now. The fact that there has been no evidence of harms despite considerable effort to find some suggests that the predictions made by opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage were unwarranted at the time. Now that we have 20 years of research and experience, those predictions remain unwarranted now.

Advertisement

Benjamin Karney is a professor of social psychology at UCLA.

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • The article argues that research from over two decades demonstrates same-sex marriage legalization produced substantial benefits for same-sex couples, including more stable relationships, improved mental and physical health, greater financial stability, and stronger family connections[1][2].

  • The piece contends that children of same-sex couples experienced no documented negative outcomes following legal recognition of their parents’ marriages, while gaining increased access to health insurance[2].

  • The column suggests that states recognizing same-sex marriages prior to the 2015 Obergefell decision experienced measurable economic gains and considerable healthcare cost savings compared to states that did not recognize such marriages.

  • The article maintains that one of the primary concerns raised by opponents—that legalizing same-sex marriage would weaken commitment to marriage among different-sex couples—failed to materialize, with analyses showing no effects on state-level marriage, cohabitation, or divorce rates.

  • The piece contends that approximately 96 independent studies confirm there is no evidence for the harms critics predicted would result from legalizing same-sex marriage, and that not a single study documented significant negative consequences.

Different views on the topic

  • Historically, some researchers suggested potential concerns about children raised by same-sex parents, with the New Family Structures Study initially concluding that people with same-sex parents faced greater risks of adverse outcomes including unemployment and lower educational attainment[3].

  • Some research has indicated that same-sex couples, particularly female-female couples, experience higher divorce rates compared to different-sex couples, with a 2022 study finding female-female marriages had 29% higher divorce rates relative to female-male marriages, and that lesbian unions demonstrate considerably less stability than gay male unions[4].

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending