Blog

NH’s First Black Sheriff Jailed For Blowing Public Money On Travel With Women

A New Hampshire man who was heralded as the first black sheriff in the state’s history was sentenced on Monday to 3 1/2 years in prison for squandering $19,000 of taxpayers’ money on expensive getaways with multiple love interests — and then lying to investigators about what he’d done. Tightly following the script we’ve seen so many times before, the disgraced “barrier-breaker” had previously said fellow Democrats who investigated his crimes were racists, and that his term in office was “rife with inequities.” Despite repeatedly lying to the court and violating his bail conditions, his sentence was a fraction of what prosecutors sought. 

At 35 years old, Democrat Mark Brave was also the youngest-ever sheriff in New Hampshire history when he was elected in November 2020 — following the summer of George Floyd and amid the Black Lives Matter mania that swept the country and helped usher under-qualified blacks into many top roles in and out of law enforcement. “It’s something I feel should have happened a long time ago, but I’m honored that I will be the person to pave the way,” said Brave at the time. (Alas, some barriers proved insurmountable that year, as a self-described transgender Satanist lost the Cheshire County New Hampshire sheriff race.) 

“His repeated lies, misuse of taxpayer funds, and abuse of office were not just criminal — they were a profound betrayal of the public trust and the oath he took to serve with integrity,” said New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella in a statement. That said, the sentence handed down by lily-white Judge Dan St. Hilaire was far lighter than the seven- to 14-year confinement that prosecutors had requested. Brave will technically be eligible for parole in 3 1/2 years, but the reality is that he’ll walk even sooner if he participates in certain prison programs. He must pay $18,969 in restitution to Strafford County. 

Keep reading

Alina Habba Charges New Jersey Democrat With Assault, Impeding Law Enforcement Following ICE Facility Protest — Trump Responds

The U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba announced charges against Democrat Rep. LaMonica McIver (N.J.) after the congresswoman and other Democrats attempted to storm a New Jersey ICE detention center earlier this month.

“Today my office has charged Congresswoman McIver with violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a)(1) for assaulting, impeding and interfering with law enforcement,” Habba wrote in an X update Tuesday evening.

Footage showed Rep. McIver shoving and striking federal officers outside the Delaney Hall migrant detention facility on March 9, alongside Democrat Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and other Democrats, as the situation grew tense.

“I have persistently made efforts to address these issues without bringing criminal charges and have given Representative McIver every opportunity to come to a resolution, but she has unfortunately declined.”

“No one is above the law — politicians or otherwise. It is the job of this office to uphold justice impartially, regardless of who you are,” Habba added.

On Tuesday, McIver confirmed she had rejected a plea deal from the Trump administration, claiming it meant she would have to “admit to doing something that I did not do.”

“Well, the Justice Department and Alina Habba wanted me to admit to doing something that I did not do, and I was not going to do that, once again. I came there to do my job and conduct an oversight visit, and they wanted me to say something differently, and I’m not doing that. I’m not going to roll over and stop doing my job because they don’t want me to, or they want to neglect the fact that we needed to be in there to see what was going on and that detention center, and so, absolutely, no, I was not going to do that,” McIver told CNN.

Keep reading

New York Officials Take Steps To Expand Marijuana Farmers Market Program

New York marijuana regulators are moving forward with new proposed regulations around the state’s so-called “cannabis showcase” program, which allows licensed businesses to sell to consumers at pop-up, farmers market-like events.

Members of the Cannabis Control Board (CCB), which oversees the state’s Office of Cannabis Management (OCM), voted without opposition at a meeting on Tuesday to advance the 23-page showcase expansion plan, which next proceeds to a public comment stage.

The new rules follow the enactment of legislation signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in March that built on the existing showcase program, which was first created in 2023.

In a presentation to the board on Tuesday, John Kagia, OCM’s director of policy, said the program has “proved to be a particularly compelling way for the new, fast-growing, regulated cannabis market to get out in the community, to build relationships with consumers and to begin the process of normalizing cannabis in the state of New York.”

Between summer 2023 and the end of that year, he noted, New York saw over 60 showcase events that together brought in more than $10 million in revenue for participating businesses.

“It really established that there was real interest, both from the licensees and from the communities where these events were being hosted, to allow cannabis to exist out of the four walls of our retail dispensaries,” Kagia said.

Keep reading

Connecticut House Passes Psilocybin Decriminalization Bill To Remove Threat Of Jail For Possessing The Psychedelic

The Connecticut House of Representatives has approved a bill to decriminalize psilocybin for adults—despite lingering questions about whether the state’s Democratic governor would support it after he rejected an earlier version of the reform measure.

One month after the measure cleared the legislature’s Joint Judiciary Committee, it cleared the full chamber in a 74-65 vote on Monday. It now heads to the Senate for consideration.

If enacted into law, the legislation would make possession of up to one-half an ounce of psilocybin punishable by a $150 fine, without the threat of jail time.

“Psilocybin is a product which has been shown to be an effective therapeutic for various mental illnesses, including treating PTSD, addictions, depressions and anxiety disorders,” Rep. Steve Stafstrom (D), co-chair of the Judiciary Committee, said on the floor. “It is a substance that our state currently treats as the equivalent of cocaine, heroin or any other sort of serious Schedule I drug that, if folks are caught with possession of even a tiny little bit, Mr. Speaker, even even personal use of psilocybin, they’d be essentially subject to a class A misdemeanor and up to a year in jail.”

“What this bill seeks to do is pretty simple. It doesn’t legalize the substance. I want to be really clear: This bill does not legalize psilocybin,” he said. “If you’re dealing psilocybin, if you’re driving under the influence of psilocybin, those penalties remain the same as they are under existing law. Driving under the influence of psilocybin, it’s driving under the influence. No change in this bill. Dealing psilocybin continues to be drug dealer offense. You can be prosecuted for drug dealing—that does not change.”

Keep reading

Washington State Dems vote against informing parents about sexual assault of a child by a school employee

In a move that has sparked fierce backlash from Republican lawmakers and parental rights organizations, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson signed House Bill 1296 into law on Tuesday, effectively dismantling key provisions of Initiative 2081—a voter-backed parental rights initiative supported by over 454,000 Washingtonians.

HB 1296, sponsored and passed by the Democratic majority in the Legislature, revises the parental rights measure that was enacted with bipartisan support just one year ago. The original initiative outlined 15 rights for parents of public school students, including the right to be notified of academic, medical, safety, and law enforcement matters involving their children, and the right to access educational and medical records.

Critics say the new legislation guts the core of Initiative 2081. Among the most controversial changes:

  • Schools can delay parents from receiving information about their students and entirely removes access for parents receiving medical and mental health records. 
  • The bill removes the requirement to notify parents when their child receives medical services from government employees in schools. 
  • It allows government employees up to two days to notify parents that their child was the victim of a crime or sexual assault in school. 
  • The bill creates significant legal and bureaucratic hurdles for parents seeking to hold schools accountable when rights under I-2081 are violated.
  • The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) is granted expanded authority to penalize school districts that fail to comply with its directives.

The bill passed along party lines, with every Republican legislator voting against it. Rep. Travis Couture (R-Allyn), a vocal opponent of HB 1296, denounced the measure as a “slap in the face to democracy” and criticized Democrats for overturning a measure they had previously supported. “We have seen a stunning amount of sexual misconduct and sexual assaults by educators in our schools just in the last year,” Couture said. He proposed an amendment that would have required immediate parental notification if a student was sexually abused by a school employee—an amendment Democrats voted down.

Let’s Go Washington, the citizen-led group that spearheaded the original initiative, issued a sharp rebuke following the bill’s signing. Founder Brian Heywood said in a statement to The Ari Hoffman Show on Talk Radio 570 KVI, “This is a direct assault on parents and a damnation of Governor Ferguson’s claim to be a moderate for Washingtonians.” Heywood emphasized the group’s commitment to repealing the new law, stating, “We will do everything in our power to reverse this gutting of the Parental Rights Bill.”

The legislation has also drawn national attention. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called the changes “utterly insane,” while former President Donald Trump weighed in on Truth Social, claiming, “Washington State Democrats voted not to inform parents if a child is sexually abused by a school employee.” Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk also shared the news, amplifying conservative criticism.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rules Police No Longer Immune In Escalated Deadly Force Encounters

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a legal doctrine that helped shield police from accountability for recklessly escalating confrontations and then using deadly force.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Barnes v. Felix makes clear that when determining whether an officer’s use of deadly force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, courts must examine the entire sequence of events—not just the split second in which an officer claims to perceive a threat before firing a weapon. The decision strikes down the so-called “moment-of-threat doctrine,” which allowed officers to escape scrutiny for their own prior misconduct and reckless provocation. Going forward, judges must weigh all relevant circumstances, including the severity of the alleged offense, the officer’s actions leading up to the use of force, and the actual threat posed by the individual. The Rutherford Institute filed an amicus brief urging the Court to overturn the moment-of-threat rule, arguing that it violated longstanding constitutional principles and fostered a culture of impunity among law enforcement.

“For too long, our justice system has enabled a kind of legalized lawlessness, where police are empowered to escalate encounters and then respond with deadly force, knowing the courts will look the other way,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “This decision is a powerful counterbalance to the Trump Administration’s efforts to shield police from the consequences of unconstitutional behavior. While the executive branch attempts to entrench a culture of impunity, the Supreme Court has hopefully drawn a constitutional line in the sand—one that signals a long-overdue shift in how police can use deadly force.”

On April 28, 2016, a police officer in Harris County, Texas, stopped Ashtian Barnes based on a report of unpaid tolls linked to his license plate. When asked for proof of insurance, Barnes explained that the car had been rented a week earlier by his girlfriend and the paperwork might be in the trunk. Claiming to smell marijuana, the officer ordered Barnes to open the trunk and exit the vehicle. Barnes opened his door but also turned the ignition back on. At that point, the officer shouted at Barnes not to move, stepped onto the driver-side doorsill, and shoved his gun into Barnes’s head. The car started to move, and the officer fired two shots into the car, killing Barnes. The incident was captured on video. Although Barnes’s mother sued, lower courts dismissed the case—ruling that the moment of threat during the two seconds when the officer was standing on the moving vehicle justified deadly force, without considering the officer’s role in creating the danger.

The Supreme Court’s decision sends the case back to the lower courts for reconsideration under the proper constitutional standard. The Barnes decision comes as the nation reckons with the 30-year legacy of the 1994 Crime Bill, which dramatically expanded the power and protection of law enforcement at the expense of constitutional rights. As The Rutherford Institute has warned, the Crime Bill ushered in an era of “zero tolerance” policing and mass incarceration, laying the groundwork for the militarized and unaccountable police culture we see today. “The Court’s decision is an overdue course correction. But it is only a first step,” Whitehead said. “Law enforcement should not be allowed to operate beyond the reach of the Constitution.”

Keep reading

Police could search homes and phones after pregnancy loss

Police have been issued guidance on how to search women’s homes for abortion drugs and check their phones for menstrual cycle tracking apps after unexpected pregnancy loss.

New guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) on “child death investigation” advises officers to search for “drugs that can terminate pregnancy” in cases involving stillbirths. The NPCC, which sets strategic direction for policing across the country UK, also suggests a woman’s digital devices could be seized to help investigators “establish a woman’s knowledge and intention in relation to the pregnancy”. That could include checking a woman’s internet searches, messages to friends and family, and health apps, “such as menstrual cycle and fertility trackers”, it states.

Details are also provided for how police could bypass legal requirements for a court order to obtain medical records about a woman’s abortion from NHS providers.

Abortion law in the UK is based on the Offences Against the Person Act from 1861. In recent years, an increasing number of women have been investigated and prosecuted under this law. The Abortion Act of 1967 allows women to end their pregnancies under medical supervision up to 24 weeks, or beyond in certain circumstances, such as if the life of the mother is at risk or if the foetus has a serious abnormality.

The guidance replaces a 2014 document that did not mention investigating stillbirths, but had one mention of investigating women who may have had an illegal abortion. The new guidance, published in January and developed by a sub-group of the NPCC’s Homicide Working Group alongside the College of Policing, National Crime Agency and Metropolitan Police, covers the scenario over several pages.

The lead authors were Ch Supt Liz Hughes of Avon and Somerset police force; Det Supt Jon Holmes of Lancashire; DCS David Ashton of Durham; Ch Supt Fiona Bitters of Hampshire and Isle of Wight; Sonya Baylis, of the National Crime Agency; and DS Robert Simmons of Suffolk.

Dr Ranee Thakar, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), said: “The new guidance is shocking. Women in these circumstances have a right to compassionate care and to have their dignity and privacy respected, not to have their homes, phones, ­computers and health apps searched, or be arrested and interrogated.”

Leading abortion providers, legal experts and medical professionals have told The Observer they were not consulted over the NPCC guidance and called for it to be amended.

Katie Saxon at BPAS, the leading abortion provider, said the organisation was aware of an increase in police investigating women who had had abortions in recent years, “but to see it in black and white after years of criticisms of the way this outdated law is enforced is harrowing”.

She added: “This [NPCC] guidance was written at the same time as unprecedented threats to global abortion rights and while parliament was set to consider decriminalising women abortion. To write it without public conversation or discussion with experts shows just how detached from reality the NPCC is.”

Louise McCudden at the abortion provider MSI Reproductive Choices said the guidance was “fuelling a culture of hostility and suspicion towards abortion and pregnancy loss”.

Keep reading

AGAIN? Spain Hit by Widespread Phone and Internet Outages Less Than a Month After Mass Blackouts

Led by a Socialist government and devoted to ‘Net-Zero’ climate fantasies, Spain has of late become increasingly unstable country when it comes to its unreliable infrastructure.

Not even a month ago, the country was plunged into darkness by a massive blackout, and today (20) a widespread internet and phone outage caused alarm in the population.

The Telegraph reported:

“Spain was hit by phone and internet blackouts on Tuesday morning, just weeks after a power failure plunged the country into darkness.

Landline and mobile services were brought down across the country after a botched system upgrade by Spanish telecoms giant Telefonica.”

The outage disrupted the lives of the population, and was particularly harmful to the work of emergency call operators.

The problems began at 2am local time, and initially affected land-lines mostly.

“Regions thought to be affected by the blackouts include the Basque Country, Andalusia, Aragon and Extremadura.”

A spokesman for telecom giant Telefonica said around lunchtime that the issue was resolved.

“The spokesman added: ‘This morning we had an incident that affected the fixed communications services of some companies and public services. We have been working from the outset to restore these services, which have now been fully recovered’.”

Keep reading

Race Fatigue in the United States

The reaction of the American left and its adjacent black political class to the arrival of 59 white refugees fleeing de facto genocide in South Africa, combined with ever-accelerating racist rhetoric and demands from America’s black population has further exposed the depth of anti-white racism in the United States and accelerated race fatigue among the vast majority of the American population.

The Episcopal Church Migration Ministries, contractually obligated to the federal government to assist in resettling refugees regardless of race or nationality since 1988, has terminated its participation in the program because of a few white South Africans refugees declaring “In light of our church’s steadfast commitment to social justice and reconciliation…we are unable to take this step.”

Bishop Sean W. Rowe, in a self-damning, openly racist statement abetting the anti-white rhetoric of the Black political class, said: “It’s against what we stand for to help white refugees fleeing South Africa.” Further, “We can’t be ourselves in the Episcopal Church and take this step of resettling white Afrikaners from South Africa.”

A CNN panel, consisting primarily of black former Obama and Biden staffers and dyed-in-the-wool leftists, declared that being victims of crimes does not entitle white South Africans to asylum in the United States and that they are not the type of immigrants we want in our country because they are white.

These openly racist comments are not surprising, given that there is among the black political class a constant and endless drumbeat of anti-white rhetoric from virtually every black member of Congress, state legislators, mayors, and many of those now seeking political office. Almost all of them are enthusiastically supported by the majority of black media outlets and websites.

Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) recently claimed, “White supremacy is rampant in this country, just look at the current administration…they have contributed to racial terrorism.”

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) offered her own spin: “The United States [i.e. the white population] owes us a debt; we need reparations now.” She cited “emboldened white supremacy” as a catalyst for the introduction of reparation legislation costing $14 trillion (or 2.5 years of all taxes collected by the Federal Government).

Keep reading

Bernie Sanders Backstabs the Democratic Party in Brutally Honest Interview

Bernie Sanders just said the quiet part out loud—and Andrew Schulz got it all on tape.

In one of his most brutally honest interviews ever, Sanders admitted Democrats ARE a threat to democracy.

He even pulled back the curtain on being robbed in 2016 and revealed his thoughts on a 2028 run.

By the halfway mark of the 80-minute conversation, Sanders started unleashing truth bombs.

He said the Democratic establishment sold out decades ago, trading working-class voters for wealthy donors and out-of-touch consultants. According to Sanders, that’s when everything started to fall apart.

“The 70s, 60s, Democrats caught on that you could raise a lot of money from wealthy people,” Sanders explained.

“And it gets back to campaign financing and all that stuff. So you got a Democratic establishment now, which is funded by wealthy people. You have consultants who are really way out of touch with reality, who make a whole lot of money in campaigns. And working class is ignored,” Sanders said.

He added that Donald Trump succeeded where Democrats fell short because at least he pretended to care about the working class.

Keep reading