Tag: police state

Miami Beach police chief defends detectives’ visit to activist over Facebook post about mayor

Miami Beach Police Chief Wayne Jones issued a statement Friday explaining why detectives visited the home of a local political activist earlier this week following a social media comment about Mayor Steven Meiner.

“Given the real, ongoing national and international concerns surrounding antisemitic attacks and recent rhetoric that has led to violence against political figures,” Jones wrote that he “directed two of his detectives to initiate a brief, voluntary conversation regarding certain inflammatory, potentially inciteful false remarks made by a resident to ensure there was no immediate threat to the elected official or the broader community that might emerge as a result of the post.”

He went on to write that “the interaction was handled professionally and at no time did the mayor or any other official direct me to take action.”

The statement comes after Raquel Pacheco, a Miami Beach political activist and veteran who previously ran for city commission and a Democratic state Senate candidate, said Miami Beach detectives arrived at her home.

“He said, ‘We are here to talk to you about a Facebook comment’ and I said – ‘What? Is this really happening?” Pacheco told Local 10 News.

Pacheco had commented on a Facebook post by Meiner, who is Jewish, in which he described Miami Beach as “a safe haven for everyone,” contrasting it with New York City, which he said was “intentionally removing protections” for and “promoting boycotts” of Israeli and Jewish businesses.

Pacheco responded to the post by writing, “The guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians, tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings, and REFUSES to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way (even leaves the room when they vote on related matters) wants you to know that you’re all welcome here,” followed by three clown emojis.

She recorded the brief exchange with the detective who spoke with her about the post. In the video, Pacheco is heard asking, “Am I being charged with a crime?” and “So you are here to investigate a statement I allegedly made on Facebook?”

She later added, “This is freedom of speech. This is America, right?”

Pacheco said she believes the visit was politically motivated rather than a matter of public safety.

In the video, the detective is heard saying, “What we are just trying to prevent is somebody else getting agitated or agreeing with the statement, we are not saying if it’s true or not.”

“So that, to me, is a clear indication that people are not allowed to agree with anyone but the mayor and that is not how America works,” Pacheco said. “I don’t agree with him and I am going to continue to voice that.”

The encounter comes amid a national conversation about censorship and free speech, including recent debates sparked by the brief suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live.”

While the First Amendment does not apply to private companies, it does protect Americans from government interference in speech.

In the video, the detective advised Pacheco to “refrain from posting things like that,” telling her that her comment about Meiner’s views on Palestinians “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.”

Pacheco, who said she was simply “calling out” what she described as Meiner’s “hypocrisy,” said her comments do not meet that standard.

Keep reading

Reports: Iranian Regime Accused of Using Chemical Agents in Crackdown on Protesters

Growing allegations that the Islamic Republic of Iran may have used chemical agents against protesters have intensified scrutiny of the regime’s most recent crackdown, described by observers as the deadliest suppression of public dissent in the country’s modern history. The claims gained momentum following the circulation of footage from Sabzevar showing Iranian security forces equipped with protective gear typically associated with hazardous chemical environments, as well as testimony from protesters in Tehran describing prolonged and unusual medical symptoms after exposure to what authorities labeled “tear gas.”

Keep reading

Native Greenlanders Reveal Horrors Under Danish Rule Including Years of Forced Sterilization and Removal of Children

President Trump has said since early in his second term as US President that he wants to purchase Greenland, the strategic landmass, from Denmark.

Speaking to reporters, President Trump underscored the strategic urgency of Greenland’s location in the rapidly militarizing Arctic, warning that America’s adversaries are already exploiting the vacuum left by European inaction.

“I will say this about Greenland: We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security. It’s so strategic. Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place,” Trump said. “Denmark is not going to be able to do it—I can tell you that.”

As Greenland comes under the international spotlight, native Greenlanders are speaking out about the realities of living under Danish rule, saying their future has been ‘stolen.’

In an exclusive report, The New York Post spoke with native Greenlanders about some of the disturbing abuse under Danish rule, including hundreds of Greenlandic women and girls who were forcibly given contraception between 1960 and 1991. Between 1966 and 1970, over 4,500 women and girls, some as young as twelve, had an intra-uterine device (IUD) implanted.

The forced contraception was part of centuries of Danish policies that dehumanized Greenlanders and their families and included policies that removed young Inuit children from their parents.

The 1951 “Little Danes” experiment removed Inuit children from the country and sent them to live with Danish foster families for reeducation and controversial parental competency tests, which “resulted in the forced separation of Greenlandic families.”

From The New York Post:

Amarok Petersen was 27 years old when she learned the gut-wrenching truth about why she couldn’t have children — and that Denmark was to blame.

Suffering from severe uterine problems, a medical doctor discovered an IUD birth control device in her body that she didn’t know she had.

Danish doctors had implanted it when she was just 13 as part of a population control program for thousands of native Greenlandic girls and women.

“I will never have children,” Petersen told The Post, with tears of anger and sorrow welling in her eyes. “That choice was taken from me.”

Following a two-year investigation, independent researchers have released a report on the forced sterilization.  Denmark’s prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, issued an apology to Greenland.

In an August 2025 written statement, Frederiksen wrote, “We cannot change what has happened. But we can take responsibility. Therefore, on behalf of Denmark, I would like to say: I apologise.”

She also acknowledged the case had caused “anger and sadness for many Greenlanders and many families” and damaged perceptions of Denmark. Even without the full picture (pending ongoing investigation), it made a “serious impression” that so many women reported abuse by the Danish healthcare system.

During a ceremony in Nuuk on September 24, 2025, Frederiksen stated, “On behalf of Denmark, I apologise.”

Keep reading

Trump Keeps “Joking” About Canceling Midterms Amid Threat of Insurrection Act Invocation

President Donald Trump has yet again mused aloud about canceling midterm elections. The White House immediately dismissed the remarks as a “joke.”

The comment came as tensions sharply rise between federal immigration agents and protesters in multiple cities, most visibly in Minneapolis. Large demonstrations have erupted after aggressive ICE enforcement actions and multiple shootings involving federal agents sparked nationwide outrage. Protesters have clashed with officers. Tear gas, forceful arrests, and heated confrontations now appear regularly in widely shared videos.

Trump, meanwhile, is threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act, the rarely used emergency law that would allow him to deploy military forces and federalize the National Guard to quell what the administration describes not only as obstruction, but as “insurrection” and “domestic terrorism.”

At the same time, the president’s approval rating remains low, with recent polls showing vanishing support on the issues of immigration and foreign policy and rapidly slipping numbers among younger voters, signaling trouble for the Republicans.

Against this backdrop, Trump’s casual talk about canceling elections lands less like harmless humor and more like a public conditioning.

Keep reading

Appeal court upholds ruling that Emergencies Act use for Freedom Convoy protest was unreasonable

The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that the federal government’s 2022 invocation of the Emergencies Act in response to the Freedom Convoy protests was not legally justified.

In a unanimous decision released Friday morning, a three-judge panel upheld a 2024 Federal Court ruling that found the Liberal government failed to meet the legal threshold required to declare a public order emergency.

The panel included Chief Justice Yves de Montigny, and the judgment was issued in the name of “The Court.”

“The Federal Court correctly determined that the declaration of a public order emergency was unreasonable,” the appeal court wrote.

The court also agreed with the lower court’s finding that the use of the Emergencies Act infringed on sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including freedom of expression and protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Keep reading

Australia’s proposed “hate crime” bill is not only an attack on free speech; it opens the door to belief-based punishment

The “hate crime” bill that is being rushed through by the Australian government is officially called the ‘Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill’.  It is a sweeping piece of legislation introduced in response to the December Bondi Beach attack, so it is claimed.  

The Bill aims to crack down on “hate speech,” particularly from religious or spiritual leaders (“hate preachers”), with a maximum penalty of 12 years in prison for inciting violence or promoting racial hatred.  

“The ban on hate symbols will be strengthened, including by requiring a person caught displaying a symbol to prove that it was legitimate – a reversal of the burden of proof requiring prosecutors to prove a crime occurred,” The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Adding, “Changes to migration law will allow the immigration minister to refuse or cancel visas if a person has associated with hate groups or made hateful comments, including online.”

It also introduces a new federal offence for inciting racial hatred or disseminating “ideas of racial superiority,” which carries a potential five-year prison sentence, and grants the Home Affairs Minister power to ban “hate groups” in the same way as terrorist organisations.

“The home affairs minister flagged the National Socialist Network and Hizb-ut-Tahrir as two possible targets of the law, but we don’t yet know which organisations might qualify as hate groups and be listed down the track,” an article in The Conversation pointed out.

Critics, including legal experts, civil liberties groups and opposition figures, have raised serious concerns about the speed and lack of scrutiny of the Bill.  The government released the draft bill with only three days for public submissions and held a snap parliamentary inquiry with limited participation.  

Experts warn the legislation may undermine free speech, fail constitutional tests and risk unintended consequences due to vague language and rushed drafting.  

The Guardian pointed out yesterday that as Members of Parliament (“MPs”) prepare for an early return to Canberra to consider Labor’s draft bill, the bill looks friendless as criticism and opposition to it are coming from all quarters. 

“The Greens represent the only viable pathway for the legislation in the Senate,” The Guardian said.  “[Greens] Leader Larissa Waters said on Friday that negotiations would continue but the risk that the legislation could criminalise legitimate political expression was too great based on the current draft.”

“That is a dangerous path,” Waters said, asking why legal protections would be extended to one vulnerable group in the community but not others.  Labor says it is open to passing new laws to include protections for LGBTQ+ Australians and people with disabilities in the future.

In the following, Nation First looks into how the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 criminalises belief, punishes influence and puts ordinary Australians at risk for speaking their minds.

Keep reading

DHS Says ICE Officers Have “Federal Immunity.” The Law Is More Complicated.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), long seen as emblematic of dangerously expanding federal power, circulated a video clip asserting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers enjoy “federal immunity” when performing their duties. Posted on Tuesday, the release comes amid widespread national attention and protests sparked by the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross during an enforcement operation in Minneapolis on January 7. Good’s death has become a flashpoint in ongoing debates over immigration enforcement, federal use of force, and civil rights, with tens of thousands gathering in Minneapolis and rallies under the banner “ICE Out For Good” held in cities across the country in recent days.

The DHS reposted a clip of Stephen Miller, the White House chief of staff, delivering a message to ICE officers. Miller’s remarks carried a clear implication: Federal officers, he suggested, operate beyond the reach of state and local authority, and anyone who interferes commits a felony. That framing sits uneasily with constitutional text, legal precedent, and long-standing limits on federal power. While immigration enforcement is undeniably a federal responsibility, the Constitution does not grant federal officers blanket immunity from the law, nor does it erase the authority of state and local law enforcement, particularly that of elected sheriffs.

“Reminder”

In the clip, Miller delivered a blunt message to ICE officers. He framed it as both reassurance and warning at once. The language left little room for qualification:

To all ICE officers: You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. Anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony. You have immunity to perform your duties, and no one — no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist — can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties. The Department of Justice has made clear that if officials cross that line into obstruction, into criminal conspiracy against the United States or against ICE officers, then they will face justice.

Miller made the remarks during a period of intense tensions between federal immigration authorities and state and local officials in Illinois. At the time, DHS had launched Operation Midway Blitz, a large-scale enforcement campaign across the Chicago area beginning in early September 2025. The operation immediately triggered legal and political backlash.

That context matters, since the DHS’s “reminder” of the “federal immunity” coincided with active litigation challenging the legality of ICE’s conduct on the ground.

The Illinois Context

This Monday, the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago consolidated those disputes into a sweeping federal lawsuit against the DHS and senior ICE officials. The complaint spans 103 pages and accuses the administration of deploying what plaintiffs describe as unlawful and dangerous immigration enforcement tactics.

According to the filing, ICE agents conducted arrests without valid judicial warrants, detained individuals without probable cause, and carried out enforcement actions that violated both constitutional protections and long-standing federal court orders governing immigration arrests in the region. State and city officials characterized the federal presence as “coercive” and destabilizing. They argued that it bypassed established legal limits on federal law enforcement authority and violated the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of powers to the states.

DHS dismissed the lawsuit as “baseless.” Spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said the department was looking “forward to proving that in court.”

The Illinois complaint echoed earlier claims raised by civil-rights attorneys representing detainees. In separate federal filings, those attorneys alleged that ICE violated a binding consent decree that restricts when agents may conduct warrantless civil arrests. Those filings documented cases in which U.S. citizens and lawful residents were mistakenly detained, raising serious due-process concerns.

Suing separately is a group of journalists, news organizations, unions and protesters. They accused the federal government of violating the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment’s ban on excessive force and unreasonable seizures, among other charges.

A judge in Chicago ruled that some of the arrests challenged in court were unlawful, finding that ICE failed to satisfy constitutional and procedural requirements. The court ordered detainees released and warned that continued violations could trigger further judicial oversight.

The Illinois litigation underscores the tension at the heart of DHS’s decision to resurface Miller’s remarks.

Keep reading

WEB WAR: After Shutting All Internet in the Country, Iranian Forces Are Now Jamming Starlink Service, While Users on the Ground Try to Bypass This New Censorship

It’s a technological ‘cat and mouse’ dispute.

As massive protests took to the streets of Iran for days on end, the Ayatollahs’ regime shut down the country’s internet completely.

That left the insurgents relying almost solely on the Starlink services made free by Elon Musk during the confrontations.

So the Iranian government started a two-pronged approach: begin cracking down and seizing all the Starlink terminals it could find, and at the same time, deploy military-grade level jammers to (so far, successfully) disrupt Starlink satellite service.

Both SpaceX engineers and Iranian protesters on the ground are now seeking ways to circumvent this censorship.

France24 reported:

“Iranian authorities cut the public’s access to the internet and telephone communications on January 8. The networks were later partially reinstated, but with severe restrictions. The Iranian regime has been facing a series of protests since late December. In an attempt to crush the movement, the Iranian government also tried to break the last international communication link available to Iranians: Starlink.

Starlink, which provides internet access through a constellation of satellites, was thought to be out of the Iranian authorities’ reach for censorship. However, in recent days, Starlink has been subject to a jamming campaign that has seriously impaired its use.”

Keep reading

DHS Invokes Immigration Enforcement To Justify Gathering Americans’ DNA

Government agencies inevitably turn enforcement responsibilities into opportunities to extend the security state. Every initiative to document, monitor, track, or otherwise spy on Americans starts with a mandate to ensure that people are obeying some rule or law. So it is with immigration policies, which fuel government efforts to gather biometric information not just on those who want to enter the country, but on citizens born and raised here. Fortunately, the scheme is getting pushback.

Massive Data Sweep Hiding in a Proposed Rule Change

On November 3 of last year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a rule change allowing its agents to gather and store more biometric data on anybody associated with applications for “benefits” including family visas, Permanent Resident (green) Cards, and work permits. The DHS summary of the rule states, in part:

DHS proposes to require submission of biometrics by any individual, regardless of age, filing or associated with an immigration benefit request, other request, or collection of information, unless exempted; expand biometrics collection authority upon alien arrest; define “biometrics;” codify reuse requirements; codify and expand DNA testing, use and storage; establish an “extraordinary circumstances” standard to excuse a failure to appear at a biometric services appointment…

According to the proposal, the purpose of gathering biometric data, including fingerprints, photographs, signatures, voice prints, ocular images, and DNA (which is heavily emphasized by DHS) is “identity management” to verify that people are who they say they are.

Immigrants aren’t especially popular in certain U.S. circles at the moment, or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that leniency towards those who want to enter the country is unpopular. But the rule change also ropes in lots of Americans. The proposal specifies that “by ‘associated,’ DHS means a person with substantial involvement or participation in the immigration benefit request, other request, or collection of information, such as a named derivative, beneficiary, petitioner’s signatory, sponsor, or co-applicant.”

As attorneys Alessandra Carbajal, Lee Gibbs Depret-Bixio, and Ryan Mosser  note in an analysis, the new rule would affect not just immigrants but “U.S. citizens, nationals, and lawful permanent residents, regardless of age.” They add that “signatories for employers that serve as sponsors/petitioners may potentially be subject to biometrics requirements. This would mark a departure from current practice, where only foreign nationals seeking benefits typically provide biometrics.”

“This data collection would not be limited to just immigrants, it would also impact millions of American citizens,” agrees Institute for Justice (I.J.) attorney Tahmineh Dehbozorgi. “DHS is claiming this DNA collection is meant to serve one narrow purpose, but realistically, it is creating a vast genetic dragnet that endangers the Fourth Amendment rights of everyone, all without Congress’ approval.”

Keep reading

This Is What Tyranny Looks Like Now: No Crowns. No Coups. Just Unchecked Power.

In January 1776, Thomas Paine published Common Sense, a pamphlet that gave voice to the discontent of a nation struggling to free itself from a tyrannical ruler who believed power flowed from his own will rather than the consent of the governed.

Paine’s warning was not theoretical.

Two hundred and fifty years later, we find ourselves confronting the same dilemma—this time from inside the White House.

When asked by the New York Times what might restrain his power grabs, Donald Trump did not point to the Constitution, the courts, Congress, or the rule of law—as his oath of office and our constitutional republic require. He pointed to himself.

According to Trump, the only thing standing between America and unchecked power is his own morality.

If our freedoms depend on Donald Trump’s self-proclaimed morality, we are in dangerous territory.

Over the course of his nearly 80 years, Trump has been a serial adulterer, philanderer, liar, and convicted felon. He has cheated, stolen, lied, plundered, pillaged, and enriched himself at the expense of others. He is vengeful, petty, unforgiving, foul-mouthed, and crass. His associates include felons, rapists, pedophiles, drug traffickers, sex traffickers, and thieves. He disrespects the law, disregards human life, is ignorant of the Bible, illiterate about the Constitution, takes pleasure in others’ pain and misfortune, and is utterly lacking in mercy, forgiveness, or compassion.

Christian nationalists have tried to whitewash Trump’s behavior by wrapping religion in the national flag and urging Americans to submit to authoritarianism—an appeal that flies in the face of everything the founders risked their lives to establish.

That whitewashing effort matters, because it asks Americans to abandon the very safeguards the Founders put in place to protect them from men like Trump.

Trump speaks in a language of kings, strongmen, and would-be emperors advocating for personal rule over constitutional government. America’s founders rejected that logic, revolted against tyranny, and built for themselves a system of constitutional restraints—checks and balances, divided authority through a separation of powers, and an informed, vigilant populace.

All of their hard work is being undone. Not by accident, and not overnight.

The erosion follows a familiar pattern to any who have studied the rise of authoritarian regimes.

Trump and his army of enablers and enforcers may have co-opted the language of patriotism, but they are channeling the tactics of despots.

This is not about left versus right, or even about whether Trump is a savior or a villain. It is about the danger of concentrating unchecked power in any one individual, regardless of party or personality.

This should be a flashing red warning sign for any who truly care about freedom, regardless of partisan politics.

The ends do not justify the means.

Keep reading