Tag: police state

UN Drug Commission Votes To Ban Previously Uncontrolled Marijuana Compound, With U.S. Abstaining

The United Nations (UN) Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) voted this week to ban the marijuana component hexahydrocannabinol (HHC) under an international treaty, with every country present except the United States casting a vote in favor of placing the substance under Schedule II of the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances.

The U.S., for its part, abstained. In a statement afterward, officials said they were “unable to vote” on the HHC proposal as well as another being voted on that placed the drug carisoprodol under Schedule IV.

“While the United States supports the use of the international scheduling system to make scientifically-informed decisions about international drug control, we were unable to vote on the proposals,” the statement said. “Nevertheless, both of these substances are already controlled in the United States, at levels that will allow the United States to meet its international obligations arising from the CND’s decisions today.”

The statement gave no further information explaining why the U.S. was unable to cast those votes.

CND also voted to regulate four other non-cannabis compounds under international law.

In a social media post, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) called the actions “critical decisions on the control of harmful substances.”

“These decisions shape drug policies, law enforcement and public health worldwide,” the body said.

Keep reading

No Other Land Won an Oscar. Miami Beach’s Mayor Is Trying To Evict a Movie Theater for Screening It

The mayor of Miami Beach, Florida, is trying to terminate the lease of a movie theater for screening No Other Land, an Oscar-winning documentary about the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The Miami Herald reported that Miami Beach Mayor Steven Meiner introduced a resolution to terminate the lease of O Cinema, an independent film theater that rents space from the city, and discontinue more than $60,000 in promised grant funding. The legislation comes after Meiner tried to pressure the theater to cancel the screening.

Florida civil rights groups and First Amendment experts say such government retaliation against the theater for the content of the films it chooses to screen would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

“Simply put, the First Amendment does not allow the government to discriminate based on viewpoint or to retaliate against anyone for their speech,” says Daniel Tilley, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida. “Pulling funding from an independent, community-based cinema under these circumstances is patently unconstitutional. The government does not get to pick and choose which viewpoints the public is allowed to hear, however controversial some might find them.”

The Miami Beach mayor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

However, in a newsletter to Miami Beach residents earlier this week, Meiner wrote: “I am a staunch believer in free speech. But normalizing hate and then disseminating antisemitism in a facility owned by the taxpayers of Miami Beach, after O Cinema conceded the ‘concerns of antisemitic rhetoric,’ is unjust to the values of our city and residents and should not be tolerated.”

On March 5, Meiner sent O Cinema a letter on official city letterhead expressing outrage at the cinema’s decision to screen the film, which documents the destruction of Palestinian homes in the West Bank.

“Here in Miami Beach, our City has adopted a strong policy of support for the State of Israel in its struggle to defend itself and its residents against attacks by the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah,” the letter read. “Airing performances of the one-sided, inaccurate film ‘No Other Land’ at a movie theater facility owned by the City and operated by O Cinema is disappointing.”

This is flagrant government jawboning—an attempt to use the mayor’s bully pulpit and the implicit threat of government action to cow the theater into self-censorship.

O Cinema initially complied.

“Due to the concerns of antisemitic rhetoric, we have decided to withdraw the film from our programming,” Vivian Marthell, CEO of O Cinema, wrote to Meiner the following day. “This film has exposed a rift which makes us unable to do the thing we’ve always sought out to do which is to foster thoughtful conversations about cinematic works.”

However, the theater then reversed course and told the Miami Herald it would continue the screenings after all.

Keep reading

Covid Taught Americans To Stop Trusting A Government That Puts Them Last

When Donald Trump first sailed into the Oval Office, his detractors shrieked that his blunt rhetoric was dividing the country. His supporters pointed out that Trump wasn’t so much creating division as he was revealing divisions that had been growing in America for a long time. 

The reaction to the novel Wuhan coronavirus did the country a similar service, by revealing a new fault line: two sets of rules, which were applied differently to Americans depending on their membership in certain political cliques. For the average American who assumed his political leaders still shared the belief that all men are created equal, it was a cruel betrayal.

Coronavirus lockdowns alerted Americans to an uncomfortable reality: the institutions to which they’d entrusted their liberties were no longer trustworthy. If the 2024 election is any indication, they got the message.

In the Covid times, hardworking people were deemed “nonessential” and lost their jobs while watching Tony Fauci’s net worth climb. They were banished from church while thousands gathered in the street to worship George Floyd. They watched their kids fall behind in school while Nancy Pelosi and Lori Lightfoot broke the rules to get their split ends trimmed. Their dying loved ones left this world alone, while Obama danced with Hollywood stars at his 60th birthday bash. To add further insult, those loved ones were denied proper funerals, while 10,000 people gathered to eulogize a drug-addicted criminal in a gold casket on television. Only some Americans were authorized to print their opinions online, while others were punished and censored.

The delusion that we were “all in this together” didn’t survive for long. A certain set of rules applied to the BLM protesters, the Democrat politicians, and the Hollywood elites, and another set of rules applied to everyone else. Americans started to realize they were being had.

When Covid vaccine mandates rolled out, the dichotomy was even clearer. For the vaccinated class, there were jobs, service academy appointments, college acceptances, and social acceptance. For the unvaccinated, there was talk of denying them entry to airplanes, restaurants, and stores, or even putting them into camps.

Once the double standard was exposed, it became visible everywhere. The Bidens got away with selling White House access because of their last name, while Trump was relentlessly prosecuted for made-up crimes because of his. Peaceful pro-life protesters were dragged to prison while abortion supporters got away with firebombing pregnancy clinics. Ukrainian oligarchs got billions while we watched the buying power of each paycheck shrink. Our government seemed more interested in caring for citizens of other countries who broke our laws than in looking after its own. Our president was more interested in apologizing for using the term “illegal” to describe Laken Riley’s murderer than he was in apologizing to Riley’s family for inviting her killer across the border. Our speech was muzzled as a “threat to democracy” while partisans gleefully dismantled our republic.

Nearly 8 in 10 Americans told Trafalgar Group pollsters in 2022 that they felt they were living under a two-tiered justice system.

If Covid brought the double standard into focus, the racial turmoil of 2020 confirmed leftists’ belief that it was a good thing. Americans were given different rules to live by, depending on the color of their skin. White Americans were expected to engage in public spectacles of guilt and self-hatred for their own inherent racism, examine their white fragility, pay “reparations” to their black friends, and accept fault for all of society’s ills. Black Americans were encouraged to celebrate their “black pride” and demand preferential treatment. The Smithsonian released an infographic saying traits like being “polite” or on time were hallmarks of “whiteness,” with the overly racist implication that black Americans should not be expected to do either. Hiring quotas were installed to reflect the principle that black and white people should be treated differently.

The ideology represented by the shorthand “DEI” turned this discrimination into a $9 billion industry. DEI didn’t just institutionalize racial discrimination, it also implemented discrimination based on sexual preferences. While white guys got blamed for society’s faults, white guys who dressed up as women got special victim status and Bud Light brand deals!

Keep reading

Mel Gibson Controversy Highlights a Bigger Scandal: Many Americans Lose Their Gun Rights for No Good Reason

Elizabeth Oyer, a former public defender who was appointed as the Justice Department’s pardon attorney in April 2022, says she was fired last Friday because she refused to sign off on a recommendation to restore Mel Gibson’s gun rights. The movie star and director, who supported Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election and was recently designated as one of the administration’s three “ambassadors” to Hollywood along with Jon Voight and Sylvester Stallone, lost the right to own firearms because of a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.

Oyer presents the episode as a conflict between public safety and political favoritism, and The New York Times framed the story the same way. But the incident also illustrates how difficult it is for people who have lost their Second Amendment rights as a result of criminal convictions—a category that includes the president himself—to regain those rights, even when there are no grounds to think they pose a threat to public safety.

In March 2011, Gibson pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor battery charge involving his girlfriend, and Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stephanie Sautner sentenced him to 36 months of probation. Although Gibson’s deal with prosecutors allowed him to avoid jail time, his plea triggered an ancillary penalty under 18 USC 922(g)(9), which makes it a felony for anyone who “has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to receive or possess a firearm. Another provision of the same law, Section 922(g)(1), sweeps more broadly, imposing the same lifelong disability on anyone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of incarceration, no matter how long ago it was committed and whether or not it involved violence.

As Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted in an opinion she wrote as an appeals court judge, the constitutionality of the latter prohibition is doubtful. Barrett dissented from a 2019 decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld the application of Section 922(g)(1) to a manufacturer of therapeutic shoes and footwear inserts who had pleaded guilty to mail fraud. History “demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns,” she wrote. “But that power extends only to people who are dangerous.”

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen added heft to that argument by clarifying that gun control laws must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” when they impinge on conduct covered by the “plain text” of the Second Amendment. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that Section 922(g)(1) failed that test as applied to Bryan Range, a Pennsylvania man who had pleaded guilty to food stamp fraud, a state misdemeanor that was notionally punishable by up to five years in prison. Based on similar reasoning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last year overturned the Section 992(g)(1) conviction of Steven Duarte, a California man who had lost his gun rights because of a nonviolent criminal record.

Without such judicial intervention, “prohibited persons” like Range and Duarte have little recourse. Under 18 USC 925(c), they theoretically can ask the attorney general to restore their Second Amendment rights. The attorney general has the discretion to do that based on a determination that “the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.” But that responsibility has been delegated to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which Congress has barred from considering such applications.

“Although federal law provides a means for the relief of firearms disabilities,” the agency explains, “ATF’s annual appropriation since October 1992 has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, ATF cannot act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals.”

If the ATF cannot act on such applications, can people with disqualifying criminal records seek relief in federal court? No, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the 2002 case United States v. Bean.

Keep reading

Cop Arrested for Child Sex Abuse, Planting Cameras in 6th Grade Girl’s Bedroom

Another day, another cop exposed for horrific crimes against children—this time, a high-ranking veteran of the Houston Police Department (HPD). Daryn Blake Edwards, a 32-year veteran and former captain, has been arrested and charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child, possession of child pornography, and sexual performance of a child—charges so vile they are difficult to stomach.

According to court documents, Edwards began molesting his victim—identified as Jane Doe—when she was in the sixth grade. Over the past year alone, she reported being assaulted between 85 and 100 times. The abuse wasn’t limited to physical assault; Edwards allegedly installed hidden cameras in her bedroom to record her without her knowledge, further violating her privacy and humanity.

A Predator in Uniform

The shocking allegations detail a pattern of systematic grooming and coercion. Edwards reportedly added his victim on Snapchat and Instagram, using the apps to send explicit messages and solicit nude photos. He even resorted to bribery, offering her money in exchange for sexually explicit images. Disturbingly, he allegedly threatened her with a folder of compromising photos, saying it would “ruin her life” if she didn’t comply.

Investigators discovered that Edwards kept multiple hidden cameras throughout his house, recording minors in various explicit situations. Police have since seized his personal and HPD-issued cell phones as part of the investigation, and his home in League City has been searched under a warrant.

A Long, Corrupt Career

Despite these charges, Edwards was not some low-level beat cop. He spent three decades moving up the ranks at HPD, overseeing divisions like burglary and theft, cyber and financial crimes, and Southwest Patrol. He was even promoted to assistant chief in 2020, before being demoted following the Astroworld tragedy. Despite his past disciplinary issues—including a 2023 written reprimand for policy violations—he remained in a position of power until his arrest.

This raises the question: How many red flags were ignored? How many other officers looked the other way? How long did this abuse go unchecked? These are the kinds of questions police unions and “thin blue line” apologists don’t want the public asking.

HPD has since announced that Edwards has been “relieved of duty” pending an internal affairs investigation—a toothless statement given the heinous nature of his alleged crimes. The reality is that police departments routinely protect their own, even when faced with overwhelming evidence of criminal behavior.

Consider the implications: This man had access to crime scenes, evidence lockers, and confidential databases for decades. He held a position of authority and public trust while allegedly committing some of the worst crimes imaginable. Yet, had he not been caught, he would still be wearing a badge today.

This case is yet another glaring example of systemic corruption within U.S. law enforcement. If a high-ranking police captain can get away with this for years, what else is happening behind closed doors?

Keep reading

Former Las Vegas Officer Who Led Route 91 Shooting Investigation and Maui Police Chief During Lahaina Fires Named as Co-Defendant in Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Sexual Assault Lawsuit

On October 1, 2017, shots rang out all over the Las Vegas Strip as concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival fled to safety.

In total, 59 people were killed and over 500 injured during the chaos that erupted from above on the country music gathering.

John Pelletier, then a captain with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, was the incident commander and was tasked with managing the extensive crime scene.

After an incredibly controversial investigation, it was determined that Stephen Paddock, 64, was the lone gunman who opened fire on the crowd from the Mandalay Bay hotel, positioned adjacent to and above the music venue.

The assessment was woefully inadequate, seemingly omitting hordes of evidence including 911 calls and evidence that suggested multiple shooters and suspicious circumstances regarding aircraft overhead before and after the events.  Several helicopters began hovering over the event 10 to 15 minutes prior to the shooting before turning off their transponders while another helicopter appeared on radar as a Southwest Airlines commuter jet.

Vegas-local Mindy Robinson put together an incredible documentary exposing the inadequacies of the investigation.  You can view that documentary here.

Following the events in Las Vegas, Pelletier moved to Maui, Hawaii and was named police chief on December 15, 2021.

Again, tragedy would find Pelletier as he was the head law enforcement officer during the August 8th, 2023 Lahaina Fire, which claimed 102 lives.

Once again, numerous claims of mismanagement arose following the fire.  They included a lack of planning, ineffective or unavailable advanced warning systems, and potential evacuation routes blocked by debris and, in many cases, police officers.

While he remained as the Maui Police Chief following the Lahaina Fire, there are now calls for him to be placed on administrative leave, including from the Maui mayor.

The calls for administrative leave are in conjunction with him being named as a co-defendant in a federal lawsuit levied against disgraced hip-hop mogul Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs.  Trouble certainly seems to follow this man wherever he may go.

The lawsuit was originally filed in October 2024 by Ashley Parham along with an anonymous man and woman.  On March 7th, that complaint was amended to include Chief Pelletier, as well as many other notable figures including former NFL star Odell Beckham, Jr., singer Jacquelyn “Jaguar” Wright, and Keith Lucks aka “Big Homie CC,” among others.

Keep reading

Police Departments Launching Drone Programs Across The United States

 Police across the U.S. are putting eyes in the sky, as the adoption of drones for law enforcement emerges as a trend. Forces deploying drones – also called Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) – for surveillance and public safety have promised not to use the flying robots for discriminatory policing.

So far the notion of facial recognition drones remains speculative. But the number of police departments adding drones to their technology arsenal – happening in parallel with a surge in AI-assisted fraud and the development of powerful facial recognition algorithms – makes the prospect of mobile biometric surveillance a plausible possibility.

Rules governing police drone deployments differ across jurisdictions

A host of recent reports shows just how many U.S. police forces use drones. A release from police in New Orleans describes a recent incident in which the use of drones for officer support led to the arrests of two 16-year-olds. The release cites a rule allowing the use of UAS to search for suspects using thermography.

Police in Washington, D.C. also launched a drone program in June. A notice on their website specifies that drones are used only in searches for missing persons, major traffic crash reconstruction, crowd management for large gatherings, and “situational and tactical purposes (such as a barricade).” It also lists things drones cannot be used for: namely, to record a particular person or group based solely on race, skin color, gender, personal appearance, and other identifiable traits.

West Hollywood is launching a one-year pilot program to deploy UAVs within a three mile radius of the city. WeHo Online reports that the drones will operate at altitudes of 300 to 400 feet, and integrate with the city’s new real-time watch center. Drone footage is retained for 30 days, “subject to policy updates and community feedback.” The force says it will not be used for surveillance, but rather as support for first responders to 911 calls.

In San Francisco, a March vote passed Proposition E, which lets law enforcement deploy surveillance cameras and drones. In this case, facial recognition is allowed; Prop E states that “drones and public surveillance cameras installed under these rules could include facial recognition technology and would not require Board approval.”

In Minnesota, an annual report released by the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) says police are buying and launching more drones than ever before. A post on the website for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights group, reports that “Minnesotan law enforcement flew their drones without a warrant 4,326 times in 2023, racking up a state-wide expense of over $1 million. The data show that more was spent on drones last year than in the previous two years combined.”

Keep reading

There’s Plenty Of Evidence Medical Marijuana Can Treat Female Orgasm Difficulty, So Why Are Some States Saying No?

While numerous studies have consistently shown that cannabis can treat female orgasm difficulty/disorder, also known as FOD, so far only a few states have recognized it as a qualifying condition for medical marijuana. Others appear to be holding it to a higher standard than other conditions, revealing a potential bias against women.

This bias may be the result of misinformation or lack of education about FOD, a serious public health condition that affects the health of up to 41 percent of women worldwide. The bias may also reflect an unwillingness to acknowledge FOD, despite testimony from women who successfully treated the condition with cannabis, letters of support from doctors who recommend cannabis for it, evidence of its serious health impacts and scientific studies showing cannabis can treat it.

In 2024, advocates—myself included—petitioned 11 U.S. states to add FOD as a qualifying condition. While some petitions are still pending, so far two states have officially approved the requests: Connecticut and Illinois.

Illinois Director of Public Health Dr. Sameer Vodra stated the following in his order approving FOD as a qualifying condition:

“After fully considering the matters raised in the petition, as well as reviewing research pertinent to the condition termed Female Orgasmic Disorder, a condition where a (natal) female has difficulty reaching orgasm. There are multiple types and causes,) there is sufficient evidence to confidently evaluate the effect of cannabis as a treatment for Female Orgasmic Disorder. Literature review and survey data support that cannabis can offer benefits to women who have “female orgasm difficulties or dysfunction.”

In New Mexico, the state’s Medical Cannabis Advisory Board approved adding FOD as a qualifying condition last fall, with the reform set to take effect upon official approval from the secretary of health.

The states of Colorado, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, meanwhile, have acknowledged receipt of the petitions to add FOD as a qualifying condition, and public hearing dates are now pending.

Yet despite scientific evidence and approvals in some jurisdictions, five states denied adding FOD as a qualifying condition with medical cannabis: Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Ohio and Oregon.

Keep reading

Human Rights Commission stands up against COVID abuses … Five years late!

The Australian Human Rights Commission’s much-anticipated report on the COVID-19 disaster has finally arrived — five years after the fact — and it’s a real eye-opener. Apparently, the commission’s big takeaway is that our governments trampled on human rights during the pandemic. Big surprise.

The report, titled Collateral Damage, lays out the fallout from the government’s lockdowns, vaccine mandates, border closures and quarantine measures. It states the obvious — Disadvantaged Aussies, not the inner-city elite, bore the brunt of these policies — all left to suffer as governments made decisions with no regard for basic freedoms.

Meanwhile, the ‘laptop class’ sipped lattes in their home offices, blissfully unaware of how lockdowns were crushing the livelihoods of hardworking Aussies who couldn’t just ride out the pandemic from the comfort of their loungerooms.

But here’s the kicker: this report comes out in 2025, long after the worst of the damage has been done. Where was the Human Rights Commission when we were crying out for help in 2020?

They were nowhere to be seen when it was crystal clear what was happening. While we were forced to crowdsource legal funds to defend our rights, the so-called watchdogs were asleep at the wheel.

Now, the commission wants us to believe they’ve had a change of heart, with seven recommendations on human rights protections. Sure, it’s a little too late, but at least they’re finally saying what was obvious from the start: the way we responded to the pandemic should never happen again.

If anything, this report just highlights how out of touch these bureaucrats were when we needed them most. They picked a side only after the war was over — and even then, it’s a half-hearted attempt to save face.

Keep reading

The Take It Down Act: A Censorship Weapon Disguised As Protection

President Trump has thrown his support behind the Take It Down Act, a bill designed to combat the spread of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), including AI-generated deepfakes. The legislation has gained momentum, particularly with First Lady Melania Trump backing the effort, and Trump himself endorsing it during his March 4 address to Congress.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

“The Senate just passed the Take It Down Act…. Once it passes the House, I look forward to signing that bill into law. And I’m going to use that bill for myself too if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody.”

While this comment was likely tongue-in-cheek, it highlights an important question: how will this law be enforced, and who will benefit the most from it?

A Necessary Law with Potential Pitfalls

The rise of AI-generated explicit content and the increasing problem of revenge porn are serious concerns. Victims of NCII have long struggled to get harmful content removed, often facing bureaucratic roadblocks while the damage continues to spread. The Take It Down Act aims to give individuals more power to protect themselves online.

However, as with many internet regulations, the challenge is in the details. Laws designed to curb harmful content often run the risk of being too broad, potentially leading to overreach. Critics warn that, without clear safeguards, the legislation could be used beyond its intended purpose.

Keep reading