Tag: police state

Harvard Quietly Trained Members of Chinese ‘Paramilitary Organization’—After the US Sanctioned It Over Uyghur Genocide

Harvard University quietly trained members of a Chinese “paramilitary organization” on two occasions after the U.S. government sanctioned the group for its role in the Uyghur genocide. The Ivy League institution could face “a big legal problem” as a result, according to one foreign policy expert.

In 2019, Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health partnered with Beijing’s National Health Security Administration (NHSA) to launch an annual health financing course, training government staffers from across China. Harvard originally noted in a blog post that officials with the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC) participated in the inaugural training, but that language was scrubbed following a Washington Free Beacon inquiry.

The Trump administration sanctioned the XPCC in 2020 “in connection with serious rights abuses against ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region,” describing it as a “paramilitary organization … that is subordinate to the Chinese Communist Party.” But Harvard continued to train its members, once in 2023 and again in 2024. On those occasions, the Ivy League university didn’t include their participation on its webpages.

China-focused research group Strategy Risks first uncovered the 2023 training in a recent report titled, “Beijing Exercises Strong Influence Over Multiple Areas of Harvard University.” XPCC officials’ 2024 involvement, noted on the NHSA’s website, has not been previously reported.

The revelation comes as Harvard faces mounting challenges, with the Trump administration freezing more than $2 billion in federal funding over the university’s failure to combat campus anti-Semitism. Since the sanctions restrict U.S. entities from engaging with the XPCC, Hudson Institute senior fellow Michael Sobolik believes Harvard could face legal trouble, including hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

Keep reading

How China Hijacks the International Human Rights System

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is using money, collaboration with authoritarian allies, and manipulation of rules to shift the international human rights system’s priorities and discussions to advance narratives and issues that are friendly to China.  For example, Beijing has secured the inclusion of independent experts in the United Nations Special Procedures system who work on issues that align with Beijing’s interests and is populating the U.N. with Government Organized NGOs (GONGOs) that act as mouthpieces for the Chinese government.  

In the past, the experts in the Special Procedures system and civil society organizations have played a crucial role in spotlighting China’s human rights abuses.  But now Beijing is utilizing them to promote issues and narratives that align with China’s interests.   

China and the U.N. Special Procedures

Among Beijing’s targets are the U.N. Special Procedures, which comprises roughly 60 independent experts who focus on a theme or country.  The Special Procedures have spoken out about the worsening repression in China, issuing over two dozen joint statements expressing alarm about the PRC’s crackdown on Hong Kong, human rights defenders, and ethnic groups, particularly the Uyghur community, with some of the statements attracting over 40 signatures.  

While the majority of Special Procedures focus on crucial human rights issues, such as torture or freedom of expression, and demonstrate integrity, China and other authoritarian countries have begun creating Special Procedures with mandates that favor their views, such as the Special Rapporteur on “Unilateral Coercive Measures,” a term intended to give sanctions a negative gloss, and the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Development, to name a few.  

Even though sanctions have long been a human rights tool, including to resist apartheid in South Africa, China and other countries that have been the target of sanctions managed to secure passage of a 2014 Human Rights Council (HRC) resolution that created a Special Rapporteur on Unilateral Coercive Measures.  

Despite opposition from a number of liberal democracies, including the U.S., the resolution, which was introduced by Iran, created in the United Nations an independent expert to examine “the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures.” It passed following a contentious vote with support from nations such as China, Russia, and Venezuela. 

After securing the creation of this position, Beijing and other authoritarian countries have cooperated with the mandate holder and provided funding. For example, since 2015, Russia, China, and Qatar – which are categorized as “not free” by Freedom House – have donated $1,325,000 (with roughly $800,000 coming from China) to the mandate on unilateral coercive measures.  Although rapporteurs do not receive a salary from the U.N., states can use donations to a specific Special Procedure to help support the mandate holder’s work by funding travel, staff, and research assistance. Most Special Procedures receive only enough funding to cover two trips per year and one staff position to support the independent expert. Therefore, additional funding can elevate and amplify a particular Special Procedure mandate. 

Keep reading

Worse Than Trudeau: Canadians Should Expect Disaster With Carney In Charge

Justin Trudeau’s far-left regime in Canada has finally come to an end as the politician exits leadership in disgrace.  His legacy includes authoritarian governance during the pandemic, whereby he threw Christian church goers and pastors in prison for refusing to stop congregations.  He called for mass forced vaccinations, and he locked the bank accounts of protesters speaking out against the covid mandates.  His admin compared people donating to the cause to “terrorists”. 

His socialist economic policies helped to exacerbate Canada’s inflation crisis and his open immigration policies greatly expanded the the flood of third-world foreigners, driving up housing prices, crushing the labor market and straining social services.  By most accounts, the majority of Canadians were ecstatic to see Trudeau exit the stage. 

But what if they still haven’t learned their lesson?  How is that even possible?

According to recent polls for the 2025 election set for April 28th, it is likely that Canadians have very short memories or they’re gluttons for punishment.  Why?  Because Mark Carney and the Liberal Party are projected to make considerable gains.  Carney has rebranded himself as a “centrist” in order to win public favor, but nothing could be further from the truth.  Mark Carney is, in fact, worse than Trudeau on every level.

Keep reading

The Lawfare Case You Weren’t Supposed to Notice Just Got Darker: FBI Lies, Fake Evidence, and a Dirty Judge

The OneTaste case was never about justice—it was about targeting an unconventional wellness company and turning it into a federal spectacle. From the start, it was clear this wasn’t a routine prosecution—it was a politically charged operation and a high-profile scalp for a federal machine eager to flex its power using a shiny new weapon: lawfare.

And it all started at the height of the #MeToo craze…

OneTaste’s downfall lined up perfectly with the kickoff of the “Believe All Women” mantra. It felt as if the FBI and DOJ were clamoring to prove how progressive they were by being tough on “abuse” cases—no matter how flimsy the evidence. The bad news for OneTaste was that their edgy practices and taboo teachings made them an easy target during the #MeToo frenzy.

Here’s what happened:

A group of adults willingly signed up for a wellness program that promised healing through intimacy. It was weird, sure—fringe, even—but it wasn’t criminal. There were no chains, no cages, no force, and no minors. Everyone involved was a consenting adult who chose to be there. But that didn’t stop the government from stepping in and slapping the company with a “forced labor conspiracy” charge—something that sounds extreme but, in this case, had no basis in reality.

And it didn’t stop there.

The government’s star witness—a former participant of the group—turned over a set of handwritten journals as evidence. She claimed they were from 2015, raw emotional reflections of her time inside OneTaste. They were dramatic. Heart-wrenching. The kind of material tailor-made for TV—and conveniently, they ended up featured in a Netflix documentary. They may have even been shown to a grand jury.

But there was just one problem: they weren’t real.

The defense uncovered that the journals were actually created years later—during the production of that very Netflix doc. Metadata told the truth. The timeline didn’t match. The entries had been heavily edited. It was clear: the evidence was fabricated. And the feds were caught red-handed.

So what did they do?

They quietly dropped the witness—and pretended none of it happened.

By that point, the media had already done its job, turning OneTaste into a national punching bag. Netflix had its salacious storyline. And the feds? They were knee-deep in a case built on feelings, regret, and flat-out fraud.

Keep reading

FBI memo examined activities of far-right radical Catholics ahead of 2024 election

In January of last year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued an 11-page memo outlining details of an investigation into what it called “radical traditionalist Catholic,” or RTC, elements within U.S. society.

Then the memo leaked. Republicans in Congress used the leak to accuse the Biden administration of persecuting Catholics and conservatives solely because of their beliefs.

The memo was quickly “withdrawn from FBI systems,” said an April 18 statement from the FBI. But a redacted copy of the document continues to linger online within the Justice Department, under whose jurisdiction the FBI falls.

So what does it say?

The FBI’s office in Richmond, Virginia, conducted the assessment. The memo’s executive summary said the presence of “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists” – known in FBI parlance as RMVE – “in radical-traditionalist Catholic (RTC) ideology almost certainly presents opportunities for threat mitigation.”

It added, “FBI Richmond makes this assessment with high confidence based on FBI investigations, local law enforcement agency reporting, and liaison reporting, with varying degrees of corroboration and access.”

The memo said, “According to an FBI Richmond contact with direct access reporting for the first time, prior to RMVE actor [redacted]’s [redacted] 2022 arrest he had been attending the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX)-affiliated [redacted] Virginia, for approximately seven months and was participating in catechism classes as part of the process to become baptized. Prior to attending [redacted] stated he wanted to find a church that was ‘anti-Zionist’ and ‘anti-progressive’ because ‘that’s where God lives.’”

Keep reading

Texas Lawmakers Take Up Another Bill To Block Voters From Locally Decriminalizing Marijuana

A Texas House committee took up a bill on Friday that would prohibit cities from putting citizen initiatives on local ballots to decriminalize marijuana or other controlled substances.

Just two days after a Senate version of the measure cleared that full chamber, the House State Affairs Committee held a hearing on the companion version from Rep. Jeff Leach (R), with proposed amendments to align both bills.

In the last few years, members, several local governments across the state of Texas have adopted policies and ordinances that are designed to decriminalize controlled substances or instruct law enforcement or prosecutors not to enforce our state’s drug laws,” Leach said, noting that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has filed lawsuits against multiple municipalities where the local reform was enacted.

“Although these lawsuits are still pending, there’s a growing trend across our state for local governments to adopt these policies, and this bill is intended to address that,” he said.

Under the proposal as introduced, state law would be amended to say that local entities “may not hold an election for voter approval of a proposed charter or an amendment to a charter that violates” state drug laws.

They also could not “adopt, publish, enforce, repeal, maintain, or amend an ordinance, order, policy, rule, or regulation” that contravenes state statute on controlled substances.

Leach described amendments included in a substitute version of the bill that seem intended to match what the Senate passed on Wednesday.

Keep reading

Actually, “personal beliefs” DO supersede “the public good”

Personal beliefs do not supersede the public good – and vaccination is a public good

The above quote – taken from a headline in the Globe and Mail – is wrong. It is wrong in general and the specific.

It doesn’t matter what “personal beliefs” are being referred to, and it doesn’t matter which particular “public good” is being protected, it is wrong.

It is wrong because “personal belief” is a placeholder phrase for “individual liberty” and “public good” for compelled action.

In this instance, it is talking about vaccination and religious freedom – these causes are often linked and used to sell decreased individual liberty as “common sense” to the “sensible” agnostic majority – but vaccination could be any behaviour, and religion any thought or opinion.

Good sense dictates and history demonstrates that anyone promoting “the public good” at the expense of individual liberty is steering society toward tyranny.

If you don’t believe me, simply observe the language used in this kind of editorial…

Respecting religious freedom is important, but it has to be balanced against other rights.

Freedom of religion was never meant to exempt people from societal obligations…

…we cannot allow those with anti-science beliefs to harm others.

The state cannot tell you what to think, but it can tell you what to do. Especially when it’s for the greater good.

Keep reading

North Dakota Governor Signs Bill To Legalize Medical Marijuana Edibles That Meet Certain Requirements

The governor of North Dakota has signed a bill into law legalizing select marijuana edibles for registered medical cannabis patients.

About a week after the measure from Rep. Steve Vetter (R) cleared the legislature, Gov. Kelly Armstrong (R) gave it final approval on Monday.

Under the newly enacted law, the state’s medical marijuana program will be expanded to permit the sale of cannabis edibles, which is defined as a “soft or hard lozenge in a geometric square shape into which a cannabinoid concentrate or the dried leaves or flowers of the plant of the genus cannabis is incorporated.”

While a fairly restrictive definition compared to many other legal states, advocates are encouraged by the development, as North Dakota patients were previously expressly prohibited from using cannabis products other than flower, tinctures, capsules and topical patches.

The new law requires edibles to contain no more than 5 milligrams of THC per serving in a package that can be up to 50 milligrams total.

In written testimony discussing the legislation, the sponsor emphasized that, “if this bill becomes law, it would be the most conservative edibles law in the nation.”

Keep reading

Texas Senate Passes Bill To Ban Cities From Putting Marijuana Decriminalization Initiatives On Local Ballots

The Texas Senate has approved a bill that would prohibit cities from putting any citizen initiative on local ballots that would decriminalize marijuana or other controlled substances—as several localities have already done despite lawsuits from the state attorney general.

The legislation from Sen. Charles Perry (R) is responsive to those local reforms, and it passed the chamber on Wednesday in a 23-8 vote. It now heads to the House of Representatives.

Under the proposal, state law would be amended to say that local entities “may not place an item on a ballot, including a municipal charter or charter amendment, that would provide that the local entity will not fully enforce” state drug laws.

The latest version of the legislation as amended in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee would also specifically bar localities from putting initiatives on the ballot that would contravene the state’s consumable hemp laws.

It would also require the attorney general to create a form for people to report violations of the law. And it’d expedite legal proceedings to challenge any city, mandating that an appellate court “render its final order or judgment with the least possible delay,” a legislative analysis says.

Cities found to be in violation of the law by placing a decriminalization initiative—or any measure that conflicts with state or federal drug laws—would be subject to a $25,000 civil fine for a first offense and a $50,000 fine for any subsequent offense.

“In the last few years several local governments have adopted policies and ordinances that are designed to decriminalize controlled substances or instruct law enforcement or prosecutors not to enforce our state drug laws,” Perry said in a statement of intent.

“In 2024, the attorney general launched lawsuits against multiple cities for adopting non-prosecution policies that violate Texas laws concerning marijuana possession and distribution,” he said. “Although these lawsuits are still pending, this is a growing trend across our state.”

It’s not clear why, if the attorney general’s lawsuits assert that local decriminalization laws are already prohibited under statute, the proposed amendments to the code are necessary. But the legislation does appear to escalate enforcement and penalties.

A House companion version of the bill, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Leach (R), is scheduled for a hearing in the State Affairs Committee on Friday.

The Senate vote comes about a week after a Texas appellate court sided with the state in its lawsuit challenging the city of San Marcus over the implementation of a local marijuana decriminalization law approved by voters.

That marked a setback for activists who’ve led the charge to enact local marijuana policy changes through the ballot, many of which have been contested by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R).

Meanwhile, despite the ongoing litigation and Senate bill’s advancement, Texas activists have their targets set on yet another city, Kyle, where they hope put an initiative before voters to enact local marijuana reform at the ballot this coming November.

Despite the state’s resistance and the latest development in San Marcos, advocates have seen several courts rule in their favor amid the legal challenges.

Keep reading

Trump’s Solicitor General Asks Supreme Court For More Time To Weigh Challenge To Gun Ban For Marijuana Consumers

The government’s top lawyer is asking the Supreme Court for more time to consider whether to challenge a February appeals court ruling concerning the federal prohibition on gun ownership by people who consume marijuana. It’s the latest development in a series of recent cases around the constitutionality of the firearm restriction.

The new filing, from Solicitor General D. John Sauer, concerns a case in which the defendant, Keshon Daveon Baxter, was found in possession of both a firearm and a bag of marijuana. The government charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits gun ownership by “unlawful” users of controlled substances.

Baxter argued in district court that the prohibition was itself illegal, contending both that “unlawful” use was too vague in the statute to be enforceable and also that the government’s ban on drug users’ possession of firearms was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The lower court rejected both arguments—a ruling Baxter appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

It a February opinion, an Eighth Circuit panel upheld the portion of the district court’s decision denying Baxter’s vagueness claim but reversed the lower court’s ruling on the constitutionality of the firearms ban. However, judges wrote that there were insufficient factual findings in the record “for this Court to review Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge.”

Nevertheless, the Eighth Circuit wrote, “We reverse the district court’s ruling on Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The federal government currently has until May 6 to decide whether to file a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the appeals court ruling. The new filing from Sauer asks for a 30-day extension on that deadline.

Keep reading