Tag: police state

Idaho Lawmakers Send Bill Creating A Mandatory Minimum Fine For Marijuana Possession To Governor’s Desk

The Idaho Senate voted 27-8 on Tuesday to pass a bill creating a mandatory minimum fine of $300 for simple marijuana possession.

Passing the Senate was the final legislative hurdle for the bill. The Idaho House of Representatives already voted 54-14 to pass the bill January 21.

House Bill 7 next heads to Gov. Brad Little’s (R) desk for final consideration. Once it reaches his desk, Little will have three options. He can sign it into law, he can allow it to become law without his signature or he can veto it.

If the bill becomes law it would take effect July 1.

House Bill 7 was co-sponsored by Sen. Brandon Shippy, R-New Plymouth. If passed into law, it would create a mandatory minimum fine of $300 for anybody 18 and over convicted of possessing less than 3 ounces of marijuana—in addition to any other penalties allowed by law.

Supporters of the bill said it is a way to be tough on marijuana and differentiate Idaho from its neighboring states.

Most of Idaho’s neighboring states allow for the recreational or medical use of cannabis. Oregon, Washington, Nevada and Montana allow the recreational sale and possession of cannabis, while Utah offers medical cannabis.

“Not long ago, marijuana was illegal in all 50 states,” Shippy said. “In not one state where marijuana is legalized has that state become a better, safer or more wealthy place to live and raise a family.”

Some opponents of the bill argued against creating a mandatory minimum fine, saying it removes discretion that judges and prosecutors exercise on a case-by-case basis.

The bill is similar to a failed bill from last year, House Bill 606, which would have created a mandatory minimum fine of $420 for marijuana possession.

Keep reading

Report: Fact Checker Group Received $2.4M in US Government Funds Amid Fact-Checking Controversy

The Poynter Institute for Media Studies is one of the organizations that received US taxpayer money over the last 12 years – most of it during the Biden administration and during about six months leading up to the former president’s election.

The Media Research Center (MRC) said it discovered this by searching the USASpending.gov site, which showed Poynter received the majority of funds from the Small Business Administration ($1.67 million), followed by the US Agency for Global Media and the State Department with $423,781, and $367,435.

The total amount the government gave Poynter in obligations from 2013 until this year is reported to be at least $2.4 million.

The problem with this “arrangement” is not simply irresponsible spending of public money, but the nature of the Poynter Institute.

Since 2015, it has been running the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), certifying and supporting more than 170 fact-checking outfits around the world with training, resources, and organizing of events.

Throughout the former administration’s time in power, conservatives and others engaging in “disfavored” speech online accused these third-party groups of bias that led to censorship.

Keep reading

ORCHESTRATED CENSORSHIP: $2.4 million in U.S. government fund to Poynter Institute raises alarms

In a shocking revelation that underscores the insidious reach of government over media and online speech, the Media Research Center (MRC) has uncovered that the Poynter Institute for Media Studies received at least 2.4 million in government funds from 2013 to 2025. The majority of this funding, totaling over 1.67 million, came from the Small Business Administration (SBA) during the Biden administration, with additional significant contributions from the U.S. Agency for Global Media and the State Department.

A historical context of concern

The Poynter Institute, home to the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), has long been a focal point of controversy, particularly among conservatives and those advocating for free speech. Since its inception in 2015, the IFCN has certified and supported over 170 fact-checking organizations worldwide, a network that has often been accused of bias and censorship. The allocation of taxpayer dollars to such an entity raises serious questions about government influence over the media and the suppression of dissenting voices.

Government-funded censorship: A dangerous precedent

The funding of the Poynter Institute is not merely a case of irresponsible spending; it is a potent example of the government’s role in shaping online discourse. The IFCN, with its extensive network of fact-checkers, including Poynter’s own PolitiFact, was integral to Meta’s (formerly Facebook) fact-checking program. This program, which flagged content and reduced its visibility by up to 95%, was a powerful tool for suppressing speech—particularly conservative viewpoints.

“The critical issue here is the extent to which the government is funding organizations that have a direct hand in moderating and censoring online content,” said Tim Graham, a senior analyst at MRC. “This is a clear violation of the First Amendment and a dangerous precedent for free speech in America.”

Keep reading

Sell Flavored Tobacco in Massachusetts, Go To Jail

In 2022, I wrote an article for Reason predicting that it was only a matter of time before selling flavored tobacco products landed an American behind bars. Almost three years later, that day has arrived in Massachusetts. According to a press release from the Middlesex district attorney and the Department of Revenue, the owner of a Marlborough vape shop has pleaded guilty to three counts of attempted tax evasion arising from the sale of e-cigarettes brought in from across state borders. He was sentenced to serve six months in the House of Correction and five years probation.

In 2020, Massachusetts became the first state to implement a comprehensive ban on all flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes and flavored e-cigarettes. Violation of the flavor ban is only a misdemeanor, but since flavored tobacco products are sold on the illicit market, sellers simultaneously violate state tax law. This brings much harsher penalties into play. In Massachusetts, evading taxes on tobacco products is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

Criminal justice reformers have warned for years that flavor bans would encourage illicit markets, creating felony crimes in the process. For example, a 2021 coalition letter signed by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers warned that a federal menthol ban would create “a massive law enforcement problem for states, counties, and cities since all states treat unlicensed sale of tobacco products as a crime—usually as a felony punishable by imprisonment.”

This is a prescient description of how the comprehensive flavor ban in Massachusetts is working out. The latest annual report from the state’s Multi-Agency Illegal Tobacco Task Force (published in February 2024) notes: “Field personnel are routinely encountering or seizing untaxed menthol cigarettes, originally purchased in other states, and flavored ENDS [electronic nicotine delivery systems] products and cigars purchased from unlicensed distributors operating both within and outside the Commonwealth. Without providing too much detail about the processes and methods of Task Force enforcement strategies, smugglers are developing more sophisticated smuggling operations to counter the Task Force’s targeted investigations.” 

These annual reports document law enforcement activity directly related to the flavor ban. Massachusetts has seized so much contraband tobacco and so many e-cigarettes that the state struggles to find the capacity to store it all. There are many instances of individuals arrested for possessing allegedly commercial quantities of menthol cigarettes or flavored e-cigarettes, with some of these cases referred for prosecution.

The Marlborough case is one of the first, if not the first, to resolve with a guilty plea and criminal sentence. The defendant is 62-year-old Ashraf Youssef, who owned AAA Smoke and Vape Shop. According to prosecutors, he “routinely” purchased e-cigarettes from out-of-state distributors between 2020 and 2022, evading $467,000 in excise taxes. In high-tax states like Massachusetts, there are obviously financial reasons to smuggle products from other jurisdictions, but the prohibition on flavored products offers additional motivation.

The Massachusetts flavor ban took effect in 2020, and minutes from a 2022 Marlborough Board of Health meeting note multiple instances of Youssef’s shop selling flavored products. In December of 2021, for example, a “Tobacco Control Manager stopped at the establishment, witnessed the sale of flavored tobacco products, and found 300 disposable flavored vapes.” And in March of 2022, “The Marlborough Police Department was sent to investigate suspicious activity in the parking lot of AAA Smoke & Vape. They determined the business has a car parked outside where patrons can walk up & purchase flavored vape products for cash.”

Keep reading

Biden Weaponized the IRS Against a Trump Nominee Before Leaving White House

Joe Biden weaponized the Justice Department against Donald Trump and Trump supporters; it should come as no surprise that on his way out the door, he decided to weaponize the IRS against incoming Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

Hegseth revealed on Monday afternoon that the Biden administration flagged him for an IRS audit. “Of course the outgoing Biden IRS rushed an ‘audit’ of the incoming SecDef,” he wrote in a post on X. “Total sham. The party of ‘norms’ and ‘decency’ strikes again. We will never back down.”

According to the document, the family’s federal income tax return indicated they owed the federal government $33,558.16, which they paid right away to prevent additional penalties.

Hegseth was one of the first people Trump nominated to serve in his administration. “I am honored to announce that I have nominated Pete Hegseth to serve in my Cabinet as The Secretary of Defense. Pete has spent his entire life as a Warrior for the Troops, and for the Country. Pete is tough, smart, and a true believer in America First,” Trump said in a statement on Nov. 12, 2024.

Hegseth, a veteran of the Army National Guard, was previously flagged as a possible “Insider Threat” and ordered to stand down from Joe Biden’s inauguration back in 2021.

Keep reading

Vice President Vance Condemns Election Cancellation in Romania

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference last week, Vice President J.D. Vance condemned the cancellation of Romania’s presidential election by the country’s Constitutional Court, acting on orders from the European Union. In a speech that shocked European observers, Vance said:

“Now we’re at the point, of course, that the situation has gotten so bad that this December, Romania straight-up canceled the results of a presidential election, based on the flimsy suspicions of an intelligence agency and enormous pressure from its continental neighbors.

“Now, as I understand it, the argument was that Russian disinformation had infected the Romanian elections.

“But I’d ask my European friends to have some perspective. You can believe it’s wrong for Russia to buy social media advertisements to influence your elections. We certainly do. You can condemn it on the world stage, even.

“But if your democracy can be destroyed with a few hundred thousand dollars of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn’t very strong to begin with.

Keep reading

Germany’s Shocking War on Online Speech: Armed Police Raids for Online “Insults,” “Hate Speech,” and “Misinformation”

A shocking discussion on CBS News’ 60 Minutes has highlighted the stark limits of online speech in Germany, where oppressive scenes once thought to be relegated to history and dystopian fiction, show law enforcement has been conducting pre-dawn raids and confiscating electronics from individuals accused of posting content deemed as “hate speech.”

In typical Orwellian fashion, despite these speech raids, officials insist that free speech still exists.

Dr. Matthäus Fink joined host Sharyn Alfonsi to explain how these laws operate and how those targeted by authorities typically react. According to Fink, most individuals are initially shocked when police confront them over online posts.

“They say — in Germany we say, ‘Das wird man ja wohl noch sagen dürfen,’” Fink remarked, illustrating the disbelief many express when they realize their statements can result in legal action. He noted that many Germans assume they are protected by free speech laws but learn too late that specific kinds of speech are punishable.

Alfonsi delved deeper, questioning the scope of these restrictions. Beyond banning swastika imagery and Holocaust denial, Fink pointed out that publicly insulting someone is also a criminal offense.

“And it’s a crime to insult them online as well?” Alfonsi asked.

Fink affirmed that online insults carry even steeper penalties than face-to-face insults. “The fine could be even higher if you insult someone in the internet,” he elaborated. “Because in internet, it stays there. If we are talking face to face, you insult me, I insult you, OK. Finish. But if you’re in the internet, if I insult you or a politician…”

Keep reading

US ‘Democratic’ Allies Are Becoming Increasingly Authoritarian

U.S. officials have a long history of portraying Washington’s allies and clients as democratic, even when their behavior is blatantly authoritarian.  Such cynical hypocrisy was at its zenith during the Cold War, but it is surging again.  A similar trend is evident with respect to U.S. interference in the internal political affairs of other countries through such mechanisms as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Such agencies fund regimes and political movements that are deemed obedient to Washington’s wishes and supportive of U.S. foreign policy objectives.  Conversely, U.S. administrations actively undermine governments or movements that they consider hostile or even just insufficiently cooperative.  The actual nature of U.S. clients often is a far cry from the carefully crafted democratic image of them that Washington circulates.

A recent example of U.S. meddling in the internal affairs of another democratic country appears to have taken place in the Republic of Georgia.  According to Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili, USAID spent $41.7 million to support its preferred candidates in the country’s recent parliamentary elections.  Adjusted for the size of Georgia’s population, such an expenditure in the United States would amount to $3.78 billion.

Keep reading

Another Sneaky Little Secret About the FBI

FBI director nominee Kash Patel has often joked that on day one in office he would shut down FBI Headquarters and reopen it the next day as a Museum of the Deep State. Rueful joke aside, he may not know how close to the truth he really is. The FBI has a sneaky little secret that has probably escaped the attention of its most ardent fans at DOJ. It’s even possible that the cloistered and suited gangsters on the 7th Floor don’t even know how easy it could be to topple the entire enterprise. 

The FBI has been in the middle of countless scandals, illegal behavior, lying on warrants, spying on people when they have no basis, making up charges, setting perjury traps, bungling Ruby Ridge and Waco with deadly results, and investigating people like President Trump.

We’ve come a long way from this gauzy memory of the FBI, America.

The law enforcement agency turned Stasi sends entire SWAT teams to targets’ homes at 5 in the morning, even after those same subjects offer to turn themselves in in a business suit accompanied by an attorney. They’ve been ordered to use “shock and awe” methods for trespassing at the Capitol. And those are just some of the dangerous shenanigans the nation’s foremost law enforcement agency has pulled. 

If so inclined, however, the Trump Administration could shut the FBI down more easily than Steven D’Antuono set up a sucker who lives in a vacuum store to “kidnap” a governor. In other words, really, really easy—on paper, anyway.

Keep reading

California City Addresses Homeless Issue by Passing Sweeping Ban on Camping on Public Property

Homeless camps have been an ongoing problem for cities across the country for several years now, particularly in California.

In Fremont, the city council has addressed the problem by passing a sweeping bill which bans camping on all public property. It’s the sort of measure you could never imagine passing in Los Angeles, which has a massive problem with homelessness.

The Fremont ban acknowledges the fact that when you have homeless people camping out on sidewalks, it interferes with the lives of everyone else who lives in the city.

FOX News reported:

California city passes sweeping homeless encampment ban on all public property

A California city passed one of the nation’s strictest anti-homeless encampment ordinances to combat the ongoing crisis.

The Fremont City Council voted 6-1 Tuesday night in favor of the law which bans camping on any public property “including any street, sidewalk, park, open space, waterway, or banks of a waterway or any private property not designated and equipped for such camping” as well as “any land designated as a high fire risk area.”

“The purpose of this chapter is to maintain streets, parks and other public and private areas within the city in a clean, sanitary and accessible condition and to adequately protect the health, safety and public welfare of the community, while recognizing that, subject to reasonable conditions, camping and camp facilities associated with special events can be beneficial to the cultural and educational climate in the city,” the ordinance read.

It continued, “The use of streets and public areas within the city for camping purposes or for storage of personal property interferes with the rights of the public to use these areas for which they were intended.

The terms of the ban are pretty serious by California standards.

Keep reading