Tag: police state

Massie Introduces Bill to Stop the Government From Propagandizing Americans

Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) wants to make it illegal for the federal government to target Americans with propaganda. Republican leadership has already blocked recent attempts to do this.

Massie introduced on Wednesday a bill to repeal the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2013. Representative Scott Perry (R-Pa.) co-sponsored the proposal. Massie explained in a press release:

The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) included the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, legislation that ended a prohibition on the federal government exposing American audiences to its propaganda. I voted against that NDAA, and I offered an amendment to the 2026 NDAA to reinstate the original prohibition, but Speaker Johnson blocked a vote. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act needs to be repealed. Taxpayer-funded fake news should not be used by the federal government to wage influence campaigns against the American people.

The Congressman brought up Johnson’s block from mid-September on his X account when it happened.

It just so happens this issue was one of the first votes Massie cast after entering Congress in 2012. He pointed this out during a phone call with The New American on Friday. Massie opposed the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, and many years later he hasn’t changed his views. He said his time serving on a select subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government and the way the federal government behaved during Covid mania have emboldened him to sponsor this kind of legislation.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced a companion Senate bill last month dubbed the Charlie Kirk Act. He said in a statement about the bill:

From the end of World War II until the Obama administration, it was illegal for the US government to use the State Department’s foreign broadcasting apparatus to target American citizens with propaganda. In 2013, these protections were taken away. My legislation restores this safeguard under the name of an American martyr for freedom of speech and freedom of thought: Charlie Kirk. As Charlie’s vital work so ably demonstrated, Americans can figure out the truth for themselves without government telling them what to believe.

When asked what propaganda campaigns the State Department or the USAGM are broadcasting, Massie said, “We can’t know,” adding that they wouldn’t have lifted the restriction if they weren’t broadcasting, or at least planning to broadcast, such propaganda. “I think it was a CYA by the government,” he told us.

Keep reading

Postal worker died after police mistook stroke for drug impairment

Anewly filed federal lawsuit alleges that a Minnesota postal worker died after police officers and jail staff ignored clear signs he was suffering from a massive stroke – mistaking his medical emergency for drug impairment. 

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court, accuses the City of Eagan and Dakota County of deliberate indifference in the death of 50-year-old Kingsley Fifi Bimpong, a U.S. Postal Service employee and lawful permanent U.S. resident originally from Ghana. 

The lawsuit claims arresting officers failed to do a proper screening to determine whether Bimpong was having a stroke or experiencing a drug overdose – and it says jail guards allowed Bimpong to remain helpless on a jail cell floor in his own urine for hours without medical attention.    

The Night of the Arrest

On the night of November 16, 2024, Bimpong vanished from his shift at the Eagan Postal Distribution Center after complaining of a headache. 

At 10:44 PM, an Eagan police sergeant saw his car driving the wrong way on Pilot Knob Road – into oncoming traffic and striking a median curb. 

According to police reports, after being pulled over, Bimpong appeared extremely confused. He couldn’t say where he lived or worked, even though he was wearing a USPS vest, and repeatedly said, “I don’t know.” Officers noted there was no smell of alcohol. 

Eagan Officer Martin Jensen, a specially trained Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE), was called to assess whether Bimpong was under the influence of drugs. DRE training, provided by the Minnesota State Patrol to officers, emphasizes distinguishing drug impairment from medical emergencies such as strokes. 

But the lawsuit alleges Jensen disregarded his training.  

According to the lawsuit, body camera audio captured him saying a full DRE evaluation, which typically takes between 30-to-45-minutes, would be “a whole bunch of time wasted.” When another officer questioned whether Bimpong should be taken to the hospital, Jensen replied: “For what?” 

Instead, Bimpong was arrested for suspected DWI. He had his blood drawn at Eagan police headquarters and was then transported to the Dakota County Jail. 

Keep reading

Witnesses Testify on CISA, GEC, and Tech Firms Coordinated Effort to Silence Dissent Online

A contentious Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Tuesday laid bare deep divisions over the role of the federal government in influencing what Americans are allowed to say online.

While Republican lawmakers and witnesses presented extensive evidence of federal agencies pressuring tech platforms to silence the dissent of the public, Democrats largely sidestepped those concerns and instead zeroed in on a controversy involving late-night host Jimmy Kimmel where ABC owner Disney temporarily took him off air over comments related to the assassination of political activist and commentator Charlie Kirk.

Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) opened the hearing with a warning about what he described as a “vast censorship enterprise” operating under the Biden administration.

He called for the passage of two bills aimed at curbing such activity: the Collude Act, which would revoke Section 230 protections from tech firms that censor speech at the request of government officials or affiliated organizations, and the Censorship Accountability Act, which would allow citizens to sue federal employees who violate First Amendment rights by coordinating with private companies to suppress lawful expression.

“Congress must act to dismantle this unconstitutional alliance between Big Tech and Big Government that has deprived Americans of their most fundamental right,” Schmitt stated.

The hearing, titled “Shut Your App: How Uncle Sam Jawboned Big Tech Into Silencing Americans,” featured testimony from several individuals who said they had been targeted as a result of government-backed efforts to influence speech online.

Sean Davis, CEO of The Federalist, testified that his outlet was hit by a coordinated censorship campaign involving both US agencies and foreign-linked organizations.

Keep reading

Winners Not Happy With Judgment in Lawsuit Against Under 21 Handgun Sales Ban

A U.S. District Court in Louisiana handed three Second Amendment advocacy groups and three individual plaintiffs what they said was an empty victory and a possibly unconstitutional order.

The plaintiffs intend to appeal the judgment.

Meanwhile, a constitutional lawyer and Second Amendment social media influencer said their concerns may be unfounded.

In November 2020, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition, Louisiana Shooting Association, along with individuals Caleb Reese, Joseph Granich, and Emily Naquin, sued the federal government over its prohibition on sales of handguns to those between 18 and 21.

In 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana upheld the ban.

The plaintiffs appealed to a three-judge panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled the ban unconstitutional and sent the case back to the district court for a final judgment.

On Oct. 7, District Court Judge Robert R. Summerhays issued a narrow judgment limiting relief to people who were members of the plaintiff organizations on Nov. 6, 2020, and are located in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, the states in the Fifth Circuit.

The judge also ruled that the organizations create a list of those members within 21 days.

The plaintiffs said that affected members of the named organizations would have been in their early teens at the time of the filing. Leaders of the plaintiff groups said they would refuse to disclose membership information.

Keep reading

Senate passes $925 billion NDAA bill for military, national security

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, a $925 billion bill setting funding levels for America’s national defense spending, passed in the Senate Thursday night and included more than a dozen amendment votes. 

The legislation authorizes roughly $879 billion for the Pentagon and about $35 billion for national security programs in the Department of Energy. It also sets aside nearly $11 billion for other defense activities.

“We’re ready to show on both sides of the aisle that the Senate can act in the interest of national security and get something done on a bipartisan basis,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., told lawmakers Thursday.

“We have a great product before us,” Wicker added. “It makes huge changes, significant changes, and we need to send the signal that we can do this, get it then coordinated with the House version, which has already been passed, and move it to the President of the United States for his early signature.”

Multiple new offices, groups, and positions within the DOD would be established under the bill, including those focused on cybersecurity; nuclear security, deterrence, and energy; and AI innovation and oversight.

Hundreds of billions of dollars for munitions stocking and defense infrastructure are included, as well as billions for American defense activities in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East.

The bill also includes significant accountability reforms to how the DOD contracts with third parties and how it fulfills statutory reporting requirements. Additionally, it requires the Pentagon, which has failed seven consecutive audits, to report on current audit progress as the 2028 statutory deadline approaches.

Military members would receive a 3.8% pay raise, and education services for their children would receive a $50 million boost.

Senators will begin voting on dozens of amendments to the 1,454-page bill Thursday evening. Given the current government shutdown, lawmakers may have to delay a vote on passage. Once the bill passes, the Senate must conference with the House to ensure the lower chamber’s version of the NDAA matches their own.

Keep reading

Italian PM Meloni Sends Bill to Parliament Banning Burkas and Niqabs in Public Spaces

Curbing forced marriages is another target of the legislation.

Conservative Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has introduced legislation in Parliament against ‘Islamic separatism’ that, among other things, would institute a ban on the burka and niqab in public places.

The Telegraph reported:

“The prime minister’s ruling Brothers of Italy party put forward a bill imposing fines of between £260 and £2,600 for wearing the face-covering garments in schools, universities, shops and offices.

The party called it a bill against ‘Islamic separatism’ aimed at combating ‘religious radicalization and religiously motivated hatred’.

It introduces criminal penalties for virginity testing, while strengthening punishment for forced marriages by adding religious coercion as grounds for prosecution.”

The bill also lays out transparency rules on the funding of Mosques and other religious organizations.

Muslim organizations must disclose all funding sources, ‘with financing restricted to entities that pose no threat to state security’.

Keep reading

Digital ID Rolled Out by Countries Everywhere at the Same Time: But Wasn’t It Just a Conspiracy?

In the past three months, governments from Switzerland to Papua New Guinea advanced digital ID policy and introduction at speed. The details differ slightly from country to country, but the messaging and sequencing are strikingly familiar. Initially, it looked like each country was acting independent of one another, but the sheer momentum and coincidental timing beg deeper questions about global coordination. Frameworks have existed in the background for years, and vendors have built to the blueprints. The result is a wide-reaching rollout choreographed from above, even if officials in each country insist otherwise. What was once dismissed as a fringe conspiracy theory is revealing itself before our very eyes. 

Coincidence or Choreography?

Switzerland approved a state e-ID in a referendum on 28 September, reversing a 2021 vote against its introduction. The European Union will capture biometrics of non-EU travellers via its new Entry/Exit System starting this month. Vietnam will use its VNeID platform, equipped with facial verification, for all domestic air travel. Costa Rica launched a mobile national ID in September. Papua New Guinea’s cabinet backed a policy that ties social media access to ServisPass, its new national ID. The United Kingdom set out a path for digital ID requirements in the name of right-to-work checks, igniting petitions and protests. Laos just ordered agencies to integrate its new national ID. Mexico finalised a biometric overhaul of the CURP (unique national ID number) ready for 2026. Ethiopia’s own version, Fayda, is being scaled up nationwide. And Zambia is beginning procurement and cooperation talks to build its own system. 

In each of these countries, people think it’s a government-specific requirement. But for this many countries, touching all corners of the earth, to adopt the technology in a matter of months? There’s a common destination in mind here, and an uncomfortable realisation that this has been in the planning stages for years. 

The Digital ID Playbook Was Written Years Ago

While speculations about digital identification was sidelined as conspiracy, the World Economic Forum have been publishing frameworks and travel credential concepts. Identity in a Digital World (2018), A Blueprint for Digital Identity (2016), and the Known Traveller Digital Identity (2020) sketched governance models, outlined technical stacks, and pushed cross-border use cases. Industries were reading along, and aligned as a result. So, by the time national politics opened the door, the design work was already done. 

Keep reading

Ukrainians told to stop sharing violent conscription videos

Ukraine’s conscription authorities have called on citizens to refrain from documenting cases of violent forced military enlistment, instead urging the population to “cherish” recruitment officers. 

The message, shared on Wednesday by the Kiev Regional Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support (TCK), condemned a Telegram channel called Stop TCK Ukraine, which has been circulating videos of men being violently detained and forced into enlistment vehicles – incidents popularly dubbed “busifications” that often go viral.

The center alleged the channel was part of Russian information warfare and told Ukrainians to “never (!) watch videos of ‘busification.’”

“For God’s sake, don’t film or share such videos,” the post read. “If the Russians turn you into sheep, they’ll slaughter you like pigs tomorrow. So cherish the TCKs, help the TCKs, assist and protect them. They are the only ones filling the ranks of frontline units.”

Keep reading

Bessent Taps New “CEO of IRS” Amid Rising Fears of Data-Surveillance State

The Treasury Department startled observers this week by creating a new executive position inside the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Frank Bisignano, the current Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA), will now also serve as the IRS’s first Chief Executive Officer.

Treasury Secretary and Acting IRS Commissioner Scott Bessent announced the appointment Monday, describing Bisignano as “a businessman with an exceptional track record of driving growth and efficiency in the private and now public sector.” Bessent added that at the SSA, Bisignano “has already made important and substantial progress.” His expertise, Bessent said, would help sharpen the IRS’s “focus on collections, privacy, and customer service.”

The announcement also sought to justify the unusual dual appointment, claiming,

The IRS and SSA — two of the most public-facing and broadly impactful federal agencies — also share many of the same technological and customer service goals. This makes Mr. Bisignano a natural choice for this role.

Bisignano’s résumé is extensive. As chairman and CEO of Fiserv and First Data, he oversaw massive financial networks handling trillions in daily transactions and led one of the largest technology mergers in corporate history. Earlier, he held top executive roles at J.P. Morgan Chase and Citigroup, where he managed global transaction systems and large-scale digital integrations. The official record portrays a career defined by efficiency and digital optimization — principles now being imported into government.

But the consolidation of authority across Treasury, the IRS, and the SSA signals more than a bureaucratic reshuffle. It represents a structural shift that quietly places vast amounts of taxpayerdata under a single executive hierarchy. In the name of efficiency, the administration has effectively merged two of the nation’s most data-heavy agencies — one inside Treasury (IRS) and one historically independent (SSA) — under Treasury’s command, giving one unelected appointee extraordinary reach over both.

Keep reading

California “Hate Speech” Bill Would Crush Dissent

If enacted and it somehow clears legal challenges, California Senate Bill 771 will be the first online censorship law of its kind in America. It would also likely pave a path for other states run by people with no tolerance for dissent.    

On September 22, the California Legislature sent SB 771 to Governor Gavin Newsom. He has until October 13 to sign it. If he doesn’t veto or sign the proposal, it becomes law anyway.

Mainstream media outlets claim that SB 771 “targets social media platforms for the role they could play in aiding and abetting in hate crimes by pushing content that could lead to a hate crime.”

The bill allows people to sue social-media companies for up to $1 million per violation. If the litigant is a minor, the fine could double.

Tucker Carlson’s analysis of the bill is more accurate than the mainstream media’s. Carlson:

That’s a censorship law.… The state of California, under Gavin Newsom, is about to — we think — censor the opinions of Americans, not to protect anybody, but to shield themselves from criticism so they continue to do what they want to do in secret.

Coerced Censorship

The bill uses broad terms that make it easy to justify censorship. It reads:

California law prohibits all persons and entities, including corporations, from engaging in, aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit acts of violence, intimidation, or coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics.

Merriam Webster defines “intimidated” as “to make timid or fearful.” Synonyms include “bully” and “frighten.” Fear and intimidation are subjective emotions that have significantly increased among America’s younger and more unstable generations. People are swimming in pools of victimhood and mental illness today. We constantly hear about a spike in anxiety. What happens when we create laws that allow litigation on the basis of largely subjective emotions?

But the more likely primary intent here is to coerce social-media companies into pre-censoring. The senior vice president of social-media company Parler, Elise Pierotti, said of the bill:

SB 771 isn’t about protecting civil rights, it’s California’s brazen attempt to export its one-party censorship regime to every corner of the internet. This bill hands Sacramento the power to bully platforms into preemptively scrubbing dissent on everything from border security to parental rights. We’ve seen Big Tech abuse vague “hate speech” rules to throttle conservatives for years, including shutting down our platform in 2021; now, lawmakers want to make it mandatory with teeth-shattering fines. This must be stopped before it buries the First Amendment.

Shoshana Weissmann, director of digital media at the R Street Institute, also suspects this is the drafter’s main agenda. She told the Daily Caller that “rather than risk liability for showing users content one could argue (even if it doesn’t actually) violate a law, platforms will over-moderate and remove posts in order to stay out of court.”

Keep reading