This blog originally appeared at CBS NEWS.

COLLIN COUNTY — Garrett Foster’s family is voicing their concerns over Governor Abbott’s decision to pardon Daniel Perry, who was convicted of murder following a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest in Austin.

“I think they’re using my dead child to make a political statement,” said Sheila Foster, Garrett’s mother.

Nearly four years after losing her son, her heart still aches.

Garrett, a 28-year-old Air Force veteran, had joined Black Lives Matter protesters in Downtown Austin in the summer of 2020, along with his fiancée, Tiffany.

Daniel Perry, an Army sergeant, had posted on social media, “I might have to kill a few people on my way to work, they are rioting outside my apartment complex.”

Perry made the post shortly before running a red light and driving into the crowd of protesters.

Foster, who had an assault rifle strapped over his shoulder, was shot and killed when he approached Perry’s car. Perry, who was also armed, fired the fatal shot.

A Travis County jury found Perry guilty of murder and sentenced him to 25 years in prison.

On Thursday, Gov. Abbott approved a full pardon for Perry, recommended by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. Abbott stated, “Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws of self-defense and cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive district attorney… I will use my constitutional authority to override his leftist policies when needed.”

Perry was immediately released from prison, and Sheila Foster received a phone call at her home in rural Collin County.

Sheila recalled the moment she was notified, saying, “The first thing I said after I collapsed was, ‘Garrett, I’m so sorry.'”

Foster’s family noted that multiple witnesses testified during the trial that Garrett was not pointing his gun at Perry when he was shot, which led to a murder conviction they now feel has been rendered meaningless.

Milton Wright, Foster’s grandfather, remarked, “It’s making a mockery of our justice system.”

Sheila expressed concern that the governor’s decision endangers anyone legally carrying a firearm in Texas.

“You can shoot somebody if you see their gun and it scares you — that’s what he’s saying,” she said.

When asked what she would tell the governor, Sheila responded, “I would ask him what the heck he is thinking and what kind of precedent he is setting in an open-carry state… He’s saying Garrett deserved to die because he was carrying a gun.”

The Foster family holds on to a slim hope that a possible lawsuit could be filed or a higher court might intervene to overturn the governor’s pardon.

Sheila’s anger only temporarily masks the anguish she feels, which she says will resurface when another year passes without her son in July.

The lawsuit against the state’s largest county highlights the divide between Texas’ two parties on how taxpayer dollars should be spent.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit to block Harris County’s guaranteed income pilot program. But what about school vouchers?

Earlier this month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit to shut down Harris County’s guaranteed income program, arguing that the Texas Constitution prohibits counties or cities from “granting public money or things of value in aid of or to any individual.”

On Thursday, Paxton’s office and County Attorney Christian Menefee are scheduled to meet for a hearing to review the temporary injunction request before Harris County’s 165th Civil Court Judge Ursula Hall. Participants were supposed to receive their first installment of payments on April 24, but everything is on hold pending a court-approved legal decision.

The guaranteed income program, known as Uplift Harris, aims to provide $500 a month to 1,928 families to alleviate poverty. This support is intended to help residents cover expenses such as transportation, housing, food, and other necessities, with no conditions attached.

Paxton’s lawsuit to terminate Uplift Harris, which he labels a “welfare scheme” and a “socialist experiment,” coincides with Texas advocating for a contentious education savings account program, commonly known as school vouchers. These accounts utilize taxpayer money to assist parents in paying for their children’s private school tuition.

So, what distinguishes these two publicly funded state programs?

Southern Methodist University political science professor Calvin Jillson suggests that Paxton’s lawsuit is “undoubtedly political.”

“If it primarily functions like a lottery, it’s likely harder to justify,” Jillson told Chron. “There are numerous programs where public funds are directed to private individuals, and the critical issue is whether these programs are designed to withstand judicial review. Sometimes they are, and other times they are invalidated.”

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

…and he’s also amplifying their hateful messages.

Elon Musk’s platform has granted “Premium” blue checkmarks to over 150 paid neo-Nazi subscribers, as per NBC News. These subscribers frequently breach the platform’s policies on hate speech by sharing hateful perspectives, swastika imagery, Holocaust denial, Adolf Hitler speeches, and antisemitic content advocating violence against Jews and other communities.

In March alone, numerous posts, including one echoing the debunked assertion that 6 million Jews didn’t perish in the Holocaust, garnered millions of views. Subscribers, who pay $8 monthly, receive “prioritization,” which enhances the visibility of their posts. Thousands of unverified non-subscribers repost this content, perpetuating and legitimizing neo-Nazi ideologies.

While X prohibits the glorification of violence in its policies, the platform inconsistently enforces these rules. According to NBC News, the tally of paid neo-Nazi accounts might exceed 150, as premium subscribers previously had the ability to conceal their verification check marks from public view. However, X has announced plans to eliminate this option in the near future.

X also recently implemented a change to provide free premium subscription checkmarks to accounts with over 2,500 verified followers. This change will make it more difficult to figure out which accounts are paid and which aren’t.

Since acquiring X (formerly Twitter) for $44 billion in October 2022, Musk has overseen a surge in hate content on the platform. He personally reinstated numerous accounts associated with right-wing, anti-LGBTQ+, and neo-Nazi ideologies, despite their prior bans. Musk himself has propagated transphobic rhetoric and embraced neo-Nazi conspiracy theories like the “Great Replacement Theory,” prompting major advertisers to withdraw their support. Consequently, X’s ad revenue has plummeted by 50%, with a potential further loss of $75 million as advertisers remain cautious. In response, Musk has lashed out at advertisers, instructing them to “f**k off” and pursuing legal action against watchdog organizations that have highlighted X’s issues with hate speech.

A report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) in March 2023 revealed that five accounts prominently promoting anti-LGBTQ+ “groomer” attacks on X generated up to $6.4 million annually in ad revenues for the platform.

According to the March 2023 CCDH report, tweets spreading anti-LGBTQ+ narratives accusing queer individuals of “grooming” children for abuse surged by 119% following Musk’s acquisition of the social media network.

In July 2023, Musk filed a lawsuit against the CCDH, claiming that their assertions were unfounded and aimed at damaging Twitter’s reputation and its digital advertising endeavors.

Imran Ahmed, founder and CEO of CCDH, remarked regarding Musk, “He’s legitimizing the notion that bigotry against Muslims, Jews, Black individuals, LGBTQ+ individuals is permissible, ordinary, and acceptable in society.”