Tag: police state

Great Big Ugly Surveillance State

On March 20, President Trump signed an executive order “Eliminating Information Silos.” The order directed heads of federal agencies to make sure officials designated by the president “have full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, data, software systems, and information technology systems.” The executive order did not attract much attention until it was more recently revealed that the administration was working with tech company Palantir to create a database containing all information collected by all federal agencies on all US citizens.

A database consisting of all the information of American citizens collected by the various federal agencies such as the Social Security Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Pentagon would be a major step in creating a total surveillance state. This database could come in handy to future Dr. Faucis seeking to enforce mask and vaccine mandates. Those with access to this database could see personal health records, education records, and tax returns. They may even be able to see how many firearms individuals have purchased and if they were associated with any organizations the government had labeled “extremist.”

Despite the obvious threat to liberty the “big ugly database” poses, some commentators and “influencers” who would normally oppose, or at least be skeptical of, expansion of the surveillance state are supporting it because they believe it will be used to locate illegal immigrants. Some conservatives are supporting this proposal because it will help identify students who have publicly opposed the U.S. government’s support for Israel’s actions in Gaza. Ironically, many of those supporting government cracking down on “anti-Israel” students came to fame (and in some cases fortune) as critics of “wokeness” and cancel culture.

The abandonment of liberty because fear drives people to trust government promises of safety is a phenomenon we have witnessed several times this century. An obvious example is the way many former friends of freedom supported the PATRIOT Act and other infringements on liberty following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. We also saw it during the covid hysteria when many embraced mask and vaccine mandates. Following the 2008 market meltdown, normally rather staunch opponents of government intervention supported the bailouts because they agreed with then-President George W. Bush who said he had “abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.”

Keep reading

Documents Show Biden Admin Ginned Up FBI Investigations Of Law-Abiding Political Opponents

The Biden administration’s National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism was never about protecting Americans. It was about targeting them. From the day it was released, the strategy became a political weapon used against political opponents and anyone who dared to challenge government overreach.

Now, four years after this deeply troubling document, one thing is clear: President Trump must immediately rescind this unconstitutional abomination. The bureaucracy should not have the power to label law-abiding citizens as potential terrorists under vague and intentionally undefined terms such as “anti-government” and “anti-authority.”

This unprecedented strategy marked a shift in how the federal government views American citizens. Notice how it uses ambiguous terms as indicators of potential terrorism, yet it makes no mention of “anti-American sentiment.” That glaring omission says it all. The true purpose was to criminalize dissent against the government rather than protect the nation.

Recently declassified documents from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence show how the FBI and Department of Homeland Security “respond[ed] to incidents of concerning non-criminal behavior,” reinforcing concerns about the weaponized agencies opening probes on Americans who weren’t breaking the law.

The abuses of power were widespread. Consider who was targeted: parents who spoke at school board meetings, MAGA supporters, and Catholics who dared to hold traditional beliefs about the sanctity of life and the sexes, just to name a few. The FBI created threat tag systems to track these Americans and opened investigative files on citizens engaged in constitutionally protected activity.

These actions are unconstitutional and extend well beyond the statutory authority granted to these agencies by Congress. The National Strategy and the mechanisms laid out in the Strategic Implementation Plan operate in a legal gray area where bureaucrats act independently and use vague, undefined criteria to investigate and target Americans with little oversight or accountability.

This lack of oversight allowed millions of taxpayer dollars to be funneled to censorship initiatives such as Stanford’s Election Integrity Partnership, which collaborated with government agencies to flag and suppress online speech under the pretext of combating “misinformation.” Americans shouldn’t have to pay to have their own voices silenced, especially by a government that was created to protect our God-given liberties, not undermine them.

Today, as anti-ICE riots ravage Los Angeles, with vehicles burned, property vandalized, police attacked with rocks, and foreign flags waving in the streets, the same media, bureaucrats, and Democrat activists who once claimed concerned parents were domestic extremists are suddenly silent.

Now that Trump is back in office, their hypocrisy and hierarchy are on full display. The narrative of domestic extremism conveniently disappears as violence erupts from the political left. The very people who weaponized government power against peaceful Americans now look the other way as real political violence unfolds.

The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism isn’t just an attack on one group of people. It’s an attack on our way of life and the core principles of our republic. The chilling effect is real, and the consequences are dangerous, cutting across the political spectrum. It breeds fear and self-censorship. If we are afraid to express our views or question those in power in a peaceful manner, tyranny is not far behind.

The president and Congress must reassert their authority against an out-of-control bureaucracy that has emerged as the fourth branch of government, unconstrained by constitutional checks. The president should immediately issue an executive order that revokes and dismantles Biden’s entire National Strategy framework. This would demonstrate Trump’s commitment to “drain the swamp.” Moreover, Trump should issue a directive to all federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies prohibiting the use of benign political or religious beliefs as criteria for investigations.

While Biden’s National Strategy itself is an executive policy document, Congress should immediately defund any program that brings the strategy to life. Congress controls the power of the purse and should eliminate all funding for related programs, including private-public censorship collaborations and any domestic terrorism initiatives that lack clear definitions. Federal efforts to outsource surveillance to third-party institutions and organizations should be abolished.

If we want a government that is accountable to the people it was created to serve, then Congress must rein it in. Our Founding Fathers warned about the dangers of an all-powerful centralized bureaucracy, and as President Ronald Reagan stated, “As government expands, liberty contracts.” It is long past time that so-called public servants are reminded that they exist to serve the public, not rule over them.

Keep reading

Virginia Man Faces 12 Months in Jail, $2,500 Fine for Drawing a Crosswalk With Chalk

After the city of Charlottesville, Virginia, denied requests to paint crosswalk lines at an intersection popular among pedestrians, Kevin Cox, a retired crossing guard, decided to take matters into his own hands by placing spray chalk lines in the shape of a crosswalk. He’s since been charged with intentional destruction of property, a Class I misdemeanor, and faces a sentence of up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.

Cox’s temporary crosswalk was placed at the intersection of Elliott Avenue and Second Street, which is often used by pedestrians visiting the Ix Art Park but does not have any painted crosswalk lines. Although 900 residents petitioned in October 2024 for a crosswalk to enhance safety following a fatal pedestrian-car crash at a nearby intersection, city officials responded by saying that pedestrians should cross at either First Street or Sixth Street, roughly 400 or 500 feet away, respectively, where painted crosswalks already exist. 

Irritated by the city’s inaction, Cox, an outspoken pedestrian advocate, placed his chalk lines in May 2025. “There is a marked crosswalk now at Second Street and Elliot Avenue in spite of you,” he told the city manager, Sam Sanders, in an email sent that same day. “It’s chalk, not paint. Please replace it with a real one,” reported 29News, a local NBC affiliate.  

Police said they couldn’t determine if the lines were permanent paint, according to the police report Cox shared with 29News, leading the city to cover them with black paint. Cox later turned himself in to the Charlottesville Police Department. “They have provoked me,” Cox told 29News, “it’s not going to stop me.” 

Pedestrian fatalities hit a 40-year high in 2022, increasing by 50 percent from 1.55 to 2.33 per 100,000 population since 2013. While there are several contributing factors, including larger vehicles with impaired visibility and high-speed roadways, some blame distracted driving. This has led 31 states to pass laws prohibiting device usage while driving since 2010.

Other government solutions range from the innocuous, like increased lighting at intersections, to the more controversial, like California’s vetoed car speed alarm bill or a $48 million proposal for new federal regulations. Placing one’s preferred road markings is a risky choice given the potential for increasing, rather than decreasing, overall safety. 

Keep reading

California City Makes Homeless Eligible For Arrest If They Refuse 3 Offers Of Shelter

The San Jose City Council in Northern California voted June 10 to render homeless individuals, who refuse three offers of shelter, in violation of trespassing laws and able to be arrested.

The council members voted 9–2 in favor of amending the city’s encampment code of conduct with a “responsibility to shelter” provision.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a Democrat, introduced the proposal, which is among the stricter anti-encampment laws introduced since the Supreme Court in 2023 made it simpler for cities to ban homeless people from camping on public property. Mahan said that, if the city has enough shelter and interim housing, homeless people should be required to move into them.

Vice Mayor Pam Foley said getting people housed is the first step to getting them the help they need.

“We cannot expect to adequately treat mental illness, addiction, or unemployment effectively if someone is living outdoors,” Foley said during the City Council meeting. “Stable shelter, whether through interim housing, safe parking, or safe sleeping sites, not only connects people with critical services and job training, but ultimately paves the way toward permanent housing.”

Foley said the updated Code of Conduct demonstrates that San Jose is dedicated to reducing homelessness and restoring access to public spaces.

“When shelter becomes available, choosing not to fill those spaces only sets us back,” she said. “We must ensure that every opportunity to move people indoors is used to its fullest potential for both their sake and for the broader San Jose community’s well being.”

The city will not make arrests merely for refusing shelter, but, rather, for trespassing. The goal of the code of conduct revision is to enhance engagement with the homeless community.

Councilmember Peter Ortiz, who voted “no” on the proposal, fears the code of conduct revision could lead to a situation where the city has de facto criminalized homelessness, pointing out that the policy says somebody who simply declines shelter could be arrested. He noted that there are many reasons one may deny shelter, including unsafe shelter conditions or incompatibility.

“I think that by including arrest language in this policy, there could be unintended consequences,” he said at the city council meeting.

Keep reading

Europe’s Populist Parties Keep Gaining Ground, But Cannot Get Into Power

Across the European continent, despite gaining considerable proportions of the vote, populist parties are increasingly being frozen out of governing in coalitions by political opponents who regard them as extremist.

Proponents of the tactic known as a “cordon sanitaire” or “firewall” say it’s not an attack on democracy but a defense of it. But one war expert said the tactic will only arouse anger in voters and that “there is no potential for peaceful political change.”

Coalitions are part and parcel of political life in many European countries.

But the cordon sanitaire, a measure normally directed at keeping out fringe outliers, is now being used to keep out parties that are gaining majority-level support.

Such parties include the Alternative for Germany, France’s National Rally, Austria’s Freedom Party, Spain’s Vox, and the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom.

They all deny being “far-right” as they are often dubbed by media, opponents, or academics, but their political opponents regard them as beyond the pale and have formed coalitions on the promise of shutting them out of governance.

Keep reading

GOP Rep Introduces Resolution Labeling ‘Free Palestine’ Slogan as ‘Anti-Semitism’

The resolution is non-binding but seeks to exploit the recent violence in Boulder, CO for political purposes

Colorado GOP Congressman Gabe Evans introduced a non-binding resolution on Friday that labels ‘Free Palestine’ as “an antisemitic slogan.” The bill seeks to limit immigration of people who oppose Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv’s genocidal onslaught in the besieged Gaza Strip. The bill is expected to be voted on some time next week.

The bill reads, “Whereas, while shouting ‘Free Palestine,’ an antisemitic slogan that calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and Jewish people, Mohammed Sabry Soliman attacked the peaceful demonstrators with homemade Molotov cocktails.”

The term “Free Palestine” refers to the desire to end the nearly 60 -years-long brutal Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, illegal per international law. It also implies support for ending Israel’s apartheid regime, replacing it with either a two-state solution or a single state with equal rights, including the right to vote, for all citizens currently living under the rule of the Israeli government.

The introduction of the bill follows a terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado by 45-year-old Mohamed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national who was living in the United States on an expired nonimmigrant visa. He had applied for asylum subsequent to his visa’s expiration. Over a dozen people were injured after the assailant threw Molotov cocktails at attendees at a small pro-Israel demonstration.

The attendees were calling for the release of the hostages taken during the October 7th Hamas attack in southern Israel. Hamas has repeatedly offered to release all hostages in exchange for a permanent ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza including the end to the blockade on the Strip which has pushed the population closer to full-scale famine amidst constant bombardment. Both Tel Aviv and Washington strongly oppose a ceasefire despite the fact that it is the only way to secure the hostages’ release and safety. Top Israeli officials, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are committed to continuing the war and finishing its ethnic cleansing campaign.

Keep reading

Under Pressure From Pro-Israel Groups, Canadian Cities Are Restricting Protest

Civil rights advocates and Palestinian solidarity groups in Canada have raised alarm over a growing wave of municipal bylaws prohibiting protests outside houses of worship, schools, and other sites.

They say the measures — which have been passed in Canada’s largest city, Toronto, among other places, and are being considered elsewhere — infringe on freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly.

Activists have also warned that the bylaws are part of a wider push to stifle demonstrations against Israel’s genocidal war against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

“It’s clear that this isn’t a response to an overall concern around the management of protest,” said Tim McSorley, national coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, a coalition of dozens of civil society groups in Canada.

Instead, the bylaws are “a response to the overwhelming and unsubstantiated attacks on pro-Palestinian protests across the country,” McSorley told Truthout in an interview. “It’s based in anti-Palestinian racism and based in the characterization of those who would protest in favor of Palestinian human rights, against the ongoing genocide, as all being supporters of terrorism, which is clearly not the case.”

Keep reading

Alabama Judge Will Hear Lawsuit From Parents Over State’s Medical Marijuana Delays

A judge will hold a hearing later this month in a lawsuit filed by parents of children potentially eligible to receive medical cannabis under Alabama’s long-delayed program.

The five parents—Dustin Chandler, Cristina Cain, Catherine Hall, Megan Jackson and Kari Forsyth—want the court to require the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC) to establish a patient registry for medical cannabis, citing delays in access to the program.

“Plaintiffs also bring this petition in their individual capacities because they have suffered specific injuries as a result of the Commissioner’s failure to establish the patient and caregiver registry and seek to vindicate their own private rights,” the parents claimed in the lawsuit. The are also suing “in the name of the State of Alabama to uphold the Compassion Act’s requirement.”

The commission argued in a motion to dismiss filed in May that the lawsuit lacks standing and asks the AMCC to take steps already taken or beyond its control.

“The Commission applauds the early advocacy of those among the Petitioners who supported passage of the [Compassion Act]. Regretfully, it appears the Petitioners have been misinformed about the status of the Patient Registry and why it has not yet been populated with the names of eligible patients,” counsel for AMCC wrote in the motion.

The plaintiffs said in their filing that each child “has a condition that is treatable with medical cannabis” but does not provide any further details.

The AMCC states in the motion that a patient registry has, in fact, been established and is being maintained at a significant expense. But according to the motion to dismiss, no patients are currently registered because physicians cannot be certified until certain licensing requirements for cultivators, processors, transporters and dispensaries are met.

According to the AMCC’s filing, rules established by the Alabama Board of Medical Examiners (BME) dictate that physician certification is dependent on issuing at least one license in each of the licensing categories, or to one integrated facility.

Keep reading

Florida TSA agent arrested for allegedly attacking 79-year-old passenger at airport

A Transportation Security Administration agent was arrested for allegedly assaulting a 79-year-old passenger at Fort Lauderdale’s airport, with police saying she was “forcefully pushing her,” a report said. 

Janiyah Wilson-Robinson, 21, of Margate, was taken into custody Wednesday following the incident at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, according to WPLG. 

The station, citing a Broward Sheriff’s Office arrest report, said Wilson-Robinson attacked the woman from Palm Beach Gardens by “forcefully pushing her,” causing her to fall to the ground and hit her forehead. 

The passenger, who was at the airport that day traveling on a JetBlue flight, suffered “minor bruising,” deputies reportedly added. 

It wasn’t clear what led to the alleged confrontation. 

The Broward Sheriff’s Office did not immediately respond Saturday to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Keep reading

The Spectacle Of A Police State: This Is Martial Law Without A Formal Declaration Of War

Reporter: “What’s the bar for sending in the Marines?”

Trump: “The bar is what I think it is.“

In Trump’s America, the bar for martial law is no longer constitutional—it’s personal.

Indeed, if ever we needed proof that Donald Trump was an operative for the Deep State, this is it.

Despite what Trump would have us believe, the Deep State is not the vast numbers of federal employees who have been fired as part of his government purge.

Rather, the Deep State refers to the entrenched network of unelected bureaucrats, intelligence agencies, military contractors, surveillance firms, and corporate lobbyists that operate beyond the reach of democratic accountability. It is a government within a government—an intelligence-industrial complex that persists regardless of who sits in the Oval Office and whose true allegiance lies not with the Constitution but with power, profit, and control.

In other words, the Deep State doesn’t just survive presidential administrations—it recruits them. And in Trump, it has found a showman willing to turn its agenda into a public performance of raw power—militarized, theatrical, and loyal not to the Constitution, but to dominance.

What is unfolding right now in California—with hundreds of Marines deployed domestically; thousands of National Guard troops federalized; and military weapons, tactics and equipment on full display—is the latest chapter in that performance.

Trump is flexing his presidential muscles with a costly, violent, taxpayer-funded military display intended to intimidate, distract and discourage us from pulling back the curtain on the reality of the self-serving corruption, grift, graft, overreach and abuse that have become synonymous with his Administration.

Don’t be distracted. Don’t be intimidated. Don’t be sidelined by the spectacle of a police state.

As columnist Thomas Friedman predicted years ago, “Some presidents, when they get into trouble before an election, try to ‘wag the dog’ by starting a war abroad. Donald Trump seems ready to wag the dog by starting a war at home.”

This is yet another manufactured crisis fomented by the Deep State.

When Trump issues a call to “BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!” explaining to reporters that he wants to have them “everywhere,” we should all be alarmed.

This is martial law without a formal declaration of war.

This heavy-handed, chest-thumping, politicized, militarized response to what is clearly a matter for local government is yet another example of Trump’s disregard for the Constitution and the limits of his power.

Political protests are protected by the First Amendment until they cross the line from non-violent to violent. Even when protests turn violent, constitutional protocols remain for safeguarding communities: law and order must flow through local and state chains of command, not from federal muscle.

By breaking that chain of command, Trump is breaking the Constitution.

Keep reading