Tag: police state

Colorado parents terrified of ‘totalitarian’ transgenderism bill that could take kids away if they misgender them

Protecting kids proved bipartisan in Colorado as moms reached across the aisle to take a stand against gender ideology legislation threatening custody rights.

Democratic Party lawmakers in Washington, D.C. were hardly alone when it came to advancing the Marxist whims of their alphabet activist supporters. Now, more than two weeks after the Colorado State House took a Sunday to advance gender ideology, a Colorado mother and a California parental rights activist have joined together in an effort to stop so-called “misgendering” and “deadnaming” from breaking families apart.

Monday on Fox News’ “The Faulkner Focus,” Protect Kids Colorado Director Erin Lee and attorney Erin Friday, a lifelong Democrat, joined host Harris Faulkner to decry the “totalitarian” HB 25-1312 which, if signed into law, would give courts cause to take custody from parents who refused to buy into the “preferred” gender identities of their own children.

“This is giving the authority to our state to take our children away if we don’t agree with these gender transitions. And so it’s got huge ramifications for all parents, especially those in custody situations who are fighting with their ex-spouses to stop their children from being medicalized,” said Lee.

“But it opens the door for all parents to potentially have their children forcibly removed by the state if they’re not willing to affirm their child’s mental health distress,” she went on as her social media account promoted Colorado state Rep. Ken deGraaf’s (R) HCR25-1003 which sought to amend the state constitution to protect parents’ rights “to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children.”

Keep reading

‘Fact-Checking’ Was Always Just Censorship. Polls Show Americans Could See Through It

Legacy media and Big Tech colluded with so-called “fact-checkers” to censor Americans’ speech for years — from Covid-19 to the Hunter Biden laptop story to the 2020 election to former President Joe Biden’s mental decline. Now, these self-appointed arbiters of speech are losing power because the public can see through their lies.

Mentions of “misinformation” and “disinformation” — the left’s favorite terms for disapproved speech — on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News have apparently dropped to the lowest levels since 2020, according to Axios. “Professional fact-checking went mainstream during the first Trump administration, but it’s since become politicized,” Sara Fischer wrote for Axios. 

The outlet should know, as it has engaged in repeated propaganda operations under the guise of “fact-checking.” After reporting former Vice President Kamala Harris was “appointed by Biden as border czar,” Axios tried to fact-check Republicans, claiming “she never actually had” the title. As The Federalist previously reported, this is the same outlet whose co-founders demanded now-President Donald Trump apologize for getting shot in the head.

So Axios’ admission that fact-checking has “become politicized” is telling. It speaks to the fact that Americans are no longer willing to fall for media hoaxes. After all, Pew Research found that this year, public support for censorship fell for the first time since 2018. And as Axios reported, the number of so-called “fact-checking” sites had been growing since before 2016 — but in recent years, it began falling. 

Keep reading

The Rise of Corporate Totalitarianism

In 1992 following the end of the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama’s published The End of History and the Last Man in which he argued that Western liberal democracy had triumphed over communism and represented the last stage of human ideological development. In response to his former student’s book, Samuel Huntingdon wrote the Clash of Civilisations thesis where he predicted that the post-Cold War period would see the emergence of conflicts along religious and cultural lines. However, what neither of them predicted was the emergence of a new threat to peace and security: corporate totalitarianism.

Corporate totalitarianism represents a new ideological development in the history of humanity. Its proponents are the oligarch class who own investment funds and corporations, dynastic families and individuals of extraordinary wealth. They belong to the same class from which powerful politicians and statesmen are drawn, and they help coordinate their activities at the helm of political parties, from within Government departments and across the multitude of non-governmental bodies that are involved in the policymaking process. Global in nature and outlook, their identification is not with any country, religion or culture, and among their chief goals is the continued accumulation of wealth and power.

This transfer is occurring under the ideological umbrella of ‘woke’; a set of values and beliefs that at first glance appear to be emancipatory and concerned with fairness, justice, health and environmental protection. Further scrutiny of the woke agenda reveals a set of deflections from actual progress and a lack of authentic concern about the human condition. Instead ‘woke’ is a vehicle for maximising wealth and power to corporations and fantastically wealthy individuals. The COVID-19 vaccination programme saw the transfer of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to pharmaceutical companies and their investors, while concerns about diversity and equity deflect scrutiny from growing class inequality.

But the woke agenda is more malignant than just a fig leaf for egregious acts committed by corporations, often referred to as woke washing, and the oligarchs are inspired by tactics from both ends of the political spectrum. A dissection of corporate totalitarianism reveals three core themes: alienation, fear and authoritarianism. The first theme of alienation seeks to introduce policies designed to destroy all social bonds between humanity, thus undermining family, marriage, parental authority, community, neighbourhood, religious faith, culture and national identity. The destruction of social bonds leaves people atomised and undermines solidarity that might result in a successful challenge to corporate totalitarianism.

Keep reading

Real ID: Phony Security, Real Authoritarianism

Those who hoped the second Trump Administration would reject big spending, war, and restrictions on liberty continue to be disappointed. A new disappointment came when Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced her department would in May begin enforcing the REAL ID law.

Passed in 2005, the REAL ID Act created federal standards for driver’s licenses. The law requires everyone applying for a driver’s license to provide the DMV with his social security number, proof of legal residence, and two proofs of his home address. The REAL ID Act allows the Homeland Security Department to mandate, as it sees fit, the including of addition items in the related government database, including “biometric” identifiers. Biometric identifiers include personal data such as retina scans, fingerprints, and DNA.

People who doubt that this database will be used to violate the rights of US citizens should ask what a present-day J. Edgar Hoover — a former FBI director who was notorious for collecting private information on politicians and other prominent individuals — would do with a database containing personal and even biometric information on American citizens. They should also consider the IRS’s history of targeting presidents’ political opponents. Americans also have the threat of violations of their rights by hackers. The government has a poor track record of protecting data of US citizens.

REAL ID’s supporters deny the law turns state driver’s licenses into national ID cards because states have no mandate to implement REAL ID. However, citizens of any state that refuses to adopt REAL ID will be unable to use their state-issued IDs for boarding an airplane or riding on a train.

Keep reading

There Is A Growing Plot Against Dogs

At the airport, the staff now offers comfort dogs, gorgeous Golden Retrievers and German Shepherds available for petting and holding. The idea is to comfort scared kids, delight passersby, and generally lift up the space. Yes, that’s exactly what dogs do.

What a wonderful idea. However, not everyone is happy about our love of dogs.

We’ve all become sensitive about threats on the horizon, small hints in science journals or from establishment media that target what we love. There was a time when we could treat these as an opportunity for debate and discussion. Events of the last five years suggest that parlor games are over. With so much trust lost, we are newly aware that these threats can turn out to be real and thus merit more attention.

The issue now concerns pets and dogs in particular. Are they coming for them?

In August 2020, Anthony Fauci co-authored an article in Cell that broadly called for “radical changes that may take decades to achieve: rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence.” Among the specifics, the article obliquely targets pet ownership, urging that we must reduce “unsafe exposure to animals.”

I wondered about that line at the time. The whole theory of the article is that humans are everywhere surrounded by icky things that can infect us. We’ve neglected these threats for many thousands of years by traveling around, moving here and there, domesticating animals, and living too closely together. This must change, they opine, because bad pathogens are ever more leaping from the outside world into humans.

Keep reading

Massachusetts Proposes Laws to Remove Religious Exemptions, Parental Consent for Vaccines

Massachusetts lawmakers are considering a bill to remove religious exemptions to school vaccine mandates and two bills that would allow minors to consent to “preventative care,” including vaccines, according to grassroots groups Health Rights MA and Health Action Massachusetts.

Versions of the bill seeking to remove religious exemptions were introduced in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and Senate.

Beth Ingham, a leader of Children’s Health Defense’s New England Chapter since 2022, called the proposed legislation “horrendous.”

If passed, children whose families object to school-mandated vaccinations based on sincerely held religious beliefs would be barred from attending public and private K-12 schools, according to Health Action Massachusetts.

Massachusetts’ lawmakers are also considering An Act Promoting Community Immunity, a bill that would undermine religious exemptions for school-based vaccine mandates and remove parental consent for vaccines in some cases.

According to Health Rights MA, the community immunity bill would:

  • Allow minors to consent to preventative care, including vaccination, without parental consent or knowledge.
  • Allow private daycares, schools and colleges to refuse religious exemptions and impose additional vaccines like the COVID-19 shots, which are not required by the Department of Public Health (DPH).
  • Subject the religious and medical exemptions to state approval.
  • Grant DPH expansive authority to change immunization and exemption requirements.
  • Require doctors to sign religious exemptions.
  • Allow DPH to publicly label programs with immunization rates below a state-defined threshold as “Elevated Risk” and exclude healthy, unvaccinated children, even in the absence of an outbreak or emergency.

Candice Edwards, executive director of Health Action Massachusetts, told The Defender that the state’s Joint Committee on Public Health will soon announce a hearing date for the two bills.

“Once the hearing is scheduled, we’re asking people to show up in person” to testify about why they oppose the bills. “Given the climate specifically for the removal of the religious exemption, we need an army inside that State House testifying.”

Additionally, Massachusetts’ lawmakers are considering a third bill that ostensibly aims at “enhancing access” to abortion but would also allow minors to consent to “preventative care,” including vaccines, without parental knowledge or consent, the groups said on their websites. Versions of the bill have been introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Keep reading

Cops Denied Qualified Immunity After Arresting Sober Teenager for DUI

Two police officers who arrested an Iowa college student for driving while intoxicated—even though a breathalyzer test showed he was completely sober—do not get qualified immunity protections for their actions, a panel of federal judges ruled Friday. 

In 2022, then-19-year-old Tayvin Galanakis was driving in Newton, Iowa, when two police officers—Nathan Winters and Christopher Wing—pulled him over and began asking how much alcohol he had consumed. When Galanakis denied drinking, Winters replied, “What do you mean none?”

Body camera footage of the incident shows Galanakis repeatedly asking to take a breathalyzer test. However, instead of administering a test, Winters required Galanakis to undergo a series of complex field sobriety tests. When Winters finally administered a breathalyzer test, it showed Galanakis’ blood alcohol content was 0.00. Almost immediately afterward, Winters began accusing Glanakis of being high on marijuana.

“I’ve had no weed tonight,” Galanakis told Winters. “I blew a zero, so now you’re trying to think I smoked weed? That’s what’s going on. You can’t do that, man. You really can’t do that.”

The officers were undeterred and arrested Galanakis, taking him to a local police station, where additional drug testing revealed that Galanakis had not consumed marijuana—or any other substances—before driving. Galanakis sued the officers in February 2023, alleging that his arrest was a “gross disregard of [his] civil rights.”

A lengthy legal battle followed Galanakis’ suit. Winters and Wing filed a counterclaim—arguing that several derogatory comments Galanakis left on the lightly edited footage and social media posts defamed them, though most of those claims were dismissed in May 2023. Last year, a district court judge denied the officers qualified immunity. They appealed, and last week, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the district court’s ruling that the pair were not eligible for qualified immunity. 

“No officer could reasonably conclude that there was a substantial chance that Galanakis was under the influence of marijuana,” wrote Judge Jane L. Kelly of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in an opinion released Friday. “Galanakis evinced almost no indica of intoxication: no erratic driving; no odor of marijuana; no watery or bloodshot eyes; no staggering or physical instability; no refusal to take sobriety tests—rather, he twice asked to take a breathalyzer test.” 

Keep reading

Nevada Senate Passes Joint Resolution Calling On Congress To Reschedule Psychedelics And Streamline Research

The Nevada Senate has approved a joint resolution that calls on Congress to reschedule certain psychedelics, provide protections for people using the substances in compliance with state law and streamline research.

About a week after the legislation from Sen. Rochelle Nguyen (D) cleared committee, the full chamber passed it in an 18-2 vote on Friday. It now moves to the Assembly for consideration.

Nguyen said on the floor that the proposal “sets forth the argument that certain research and therapeutic trials have demonstrated promising results for the use of these substances in the treatment of disorders such as traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, certain depressive disorders and other mental health conditions.”

“The measure notes the low abuse potential for classic psychedelics and highlights their safety in therapeutic session settings,” she said, adding that “SJR 10 expresses Nevada’s continued support for expanded research opportunities…and urges Congress and the appropriate federal agencies to increase related funding” for psychedelic medicines.

Keep reading

Marijuana Industry PAC Ad Accuses Biden Of Waging ‘Deep State War’ Against Cannabis, Urging Trump To Save The Day With Rescheduling

A marijuana industry-backed political action committee (PAC) is making another targeted appeal to President Donald Trump.

This time it is accusing former President Joe Biden and his Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of waging a “deep state war” against medical cannabis patients—but without mentioning that the former president himself initiated the rescheduling process that marijuana companies want to see completed under Trump.

In its latest ad, titled “DEA Deep State,” the American Rights and Reform PAC said “medical cannabis has helped millions of patients,” leading to a rescheduling recommendation from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that was later endorsed by the Justice Department.

“But Joe Biden’s DEA deep state kept cannabis illegal,” it says. “Patients need help. President Donald Trump has beat the deep state before, and now Trump can finish what he started by leading the fight to reschedule cannabis and expand research and access to care.”

“It’s time to end Joe Biden’s deep state war on American patients,” it says, clearly attempting to leverage the sitting president’s desire to best his predecessor.

Keep reading

Are Police In Memphis Overcharging Drivers Caught With Small Amounts Of Marijuana?

Memphis simmered in the July heat as a police cruiser pulled over a blue Nissan Altima motoring through the downtown business district. The car’s temporary tag had expired days earlier, an oversight police often resolve by issuing a citation.

But this traffic stop took a more serious turn when a Memphis Police Department (MPD) officer said he “could smell an odor consistent with marijuana coming out of the vehicle.’’

After questioning a female passenger, police found slightly more than a half-ounce of marijuana in her purse—a small but critical amount that led officers to arrest the family-focused grandmother on a felony drug-trafficking charge.

As a special task force begins reviewing U.S. Justice Department claims of abuse by MPD during traffic stops, reform advocates say the woman’s arrest is yet another example of overly aggressive policing in Memphis.

“It’s absolutely a trumped-up charge,” said Claiborne Ferguson, a longtime Memphis defense attorney who reviewed the July 2, 2024, police affidavit filed against the woman. He has no official connection to the case.

The woman, a cancer victim, said she is no drug dealer and doesn’t even smoke that much.

“It was crazy,” said the woman, who asked not to be identified. Although the charge against her was later dropped, she said she fears any association with a criminal charge. “I’m a real-life good person. I treat everyone with respect,” she said.

The incident is one of 13 traffic-stop cases identified by the Institute for Public Service Reporting (IPSR) in which Shelby County law enforcement officers signed felony marijuana affidavits, only to see those charges vacated in court. Attorneys who reviewed the affidavits for The Institute said they appeared deficient in supporting felony charges of intent to sell.

The charges—which often involved warrantless searches of vehicles—led arrestees to spend several hours or more in jail.

Keep reading